Why do so many people want to devoid life of a spiritual meaning

One eyed Jack

Fourier wrote: »

Well yes, but what is the "cult-like" behaviour here. I don't agree with some of this stuff either, but I don't see it as particularly "cult-like" or treating science as an ideology.

The actual climate science does give a certain set of facts. Greta and people like her are using them a simplistically perhaps, or not considering other issues, but I don't see anything cult-like in the use of the facts themselves. The data clearly shows a "climate crisis" by any normal definition of the word "crisis". I don't see how phrasing it like that is some cult-like presentation.

I mean really what we have here are findings from climate science and other suggestions from economics. Considering both and caring less for the economic arguments, while it might be wrong, is hardly cult like. Otherwise do we say that those with the opposite conclusion have a cult-like devotion to economics?

Depending upon ones adherence to, and their promotion of their beliefs, the term “cult like” could easily be applied to their behaviours and attitudes. The more feverent their adherence to their beliefs, the more cult like their behaviour, and the more they are likely to use emotive language to promote their ideological beliefs. Describing anything as a crisis and making doomsayer predictions is exactly the kind of behaviour one observes in a cult, and yes, the same sort of behaviour can be observed in people who want to promote one economic model above all others. Economics isn’t called the dismal science for nothing, as opposed to the gay science of poetry :pac:

Fourier wrote: »

What's the relevance of quoting that 7th day Adventist study? It just seems to be a non-sequitur. I'm not really discussing religious groups. There are similar studies showing Atheists have high levels of mental well-being and health. So what?

[There are studies showing that "non-religious" people have poorer health, but I suggest reading them carefully first as what they actually say is quite different from the popular conception of them]

The point was simply presenting an example of the idea that people’s lifestyles and behaviours can be informed just as much by religion as scientific inquiry. Both Adventists and scientists would find much common ground in their predicted outcomes, although their respective approaches couldn’t be more different. The ethics of using them as test subjects in the development of vaccines though, is debatable. The facts suggest that they make good candidates, however the ethics of doing so is a question that the facts cannot answer on their own.

Fourier wrote: »

So what you are saying is that science and religion have an equal basis to inform morality?

If so, then under the usual conception of them, I would say this is wrong.

Science is a method for obtaining facts you can use to inform your morality.

Religion itself provides a moral framework, it doesn't simply inform it. It's not that "some people use religion to proscribe...", it's that religions themselves present what they consider the correct moral framework. The Bible is meant to make objective moral claims. This isn't the same as using science to inform morality. There's no real consistent way to be religious and simply use it to inform your morality. It has to be the basis of morality.

I would argue that it is scientific inquiry is the method for obtaining facts that are presented within the conceptual framework of science, which can be used to inform morality, in the same way that religion is a conceptual framework through which facts obtained from theological inquiry are presented, which can be used to inform morality. In both realms it’s simply a question for the observer(s) to decide what observations constitute pertinent evidence on the basis of whether or not it supports their already held beliefs.

In just the same way as one scientific discipline is not the only source of evidence pertaining to scientific inquiry, the Bible is not the only source of evidence when it comes to theological inquiry. In the same way, the idea that there is no real consistent way to be religious and simply use that to inform morality appears to be based upon the idea that there is only one religion, or to put it in terms of scientific inquiry, as though there is only one way to observe a phenomenon, which can be used to inform morality. Historically speaking, that approach has often had a detrimental effect on society, whether it be religion that was used, or science that was used, to inform morality.

lalababa

The Catholic Church and doctrine had an unassailable stranglehold on this country for hundreds of years. With poor idiots peddling an omnipotent hiarchy that lived in the sky to other poor idiots. Tis a everyday wonder to me how all the churches aren't burnt down and pissed on at this stage. But sure Mary up the road had a lovely confirmation and she only 11 with her white dress sure begorra wasn't she as good as the rest of 'em.
You really have to be devoid of logic to actually believe in the literal jeasus Christ. There's nothing wrong with the commandments....If you ever hear a priest talking about 'the word, and the word is God' you'll know he doesn't give a fig for doctrine.
What's my point? We have all these brainless/couldn't be arsed/ sure tis a lovely day out/ what will the neighbours think gombeens going to mass..and they as about as Christian as a donkey's fart. Hypocrites. F**k em , leave em off.

Gradius

jobeenfitz wrote: »

That's an amazing story.

There are "amazing" people out there, all right.

jobeenfitz

jobeenfitz wrote: »

That's an amazing story.

He left out the... 'And then I woke up'.

Gradius

Deleted User wrote: »

He left out the... 'And then I woke up'.

Of course it's a fictional story I made up.

I did my best, trying to imagine what would be the most scathing indictment of try-hard that I could muster.

Let's see. "An atheist failed to save a Muslim from drowning right before my eyes". No, not dramatic enough.

"A non-religious person set fire to a church on principle". Nah, not juicy enough.

So I went with the imaginary story of "bloke serves free alcohol with sandwich to make a contrarians point." Yes, thats the zinger I dreamt up to win the Internet.

So, is the above more plausible than the below...

"If I pretend everything I don't want to hear is fictional, then life is simple-dimples"

Fourier

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Describing anything as a crisis...is exactly the kind of behaviour one observes in a cult

Describing something as a "crisis" is not cultish behaviour. I just think that's over the top. When the facts suggest something will occur with very serious consequences then "crisis" is a fairly typical word to use. It might be wrong to use it, but it's hardly cultish.

Both Adventists and scientists would find much common ground in their predicted outcomes

What predicted outcomes are scientists and Adventists finding common ground in here?

I would argue that it is scientific inquiry is the method for obtaining facts that are presented within the conceptual framework of science, which can be used to inform morality, in the same way that religion is a conceptual framework through which facts obtained from theological inquiry are presented, which can be used to inform morality.

No, religions make basic moral claims. Most major religions don't just inform morality, they directly proscribe it. Religion and science aren't really similar in this regard, or basically any other regard.

In the same way, the idea that there is no real consistent way to be religious and simply use that to inform morality appears to be based upon the idea that there is only one religion, or to put it in terms of scientific inquiry, as though there is only one way to observe a phenomenon, which can be used to inform morality. Historically speaking, that approach has often had a detrimental effect on society, whether it be religion that was used, or science that was used, to inform morality.

Okay, but here you are substituting modern spiritualism for religion. Most major religions do say they are the only correct religion which uniquely proscribes morality in an objectively correct way. You might personally take a more open minded modern eclectic view, but that's not what the actual faiths themselves do.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

- gets called out as a sh*t stirrer.
- denies it
- doubles down and gets a bigger spoon :pac:

Nicely done :pac:

Thanks, you did say you did a bit of trolling in your time... so I knew you'd appreciate the effort.

Btw, you're the one not attempting to formulate any sort of response to my points... you're merely trying to antagonise another poster, which sort of makes you the troll.

...Here... you can have your big spoon back now... I won't be needing it anymore! :P

lalababa

Spirituality...relating to the non physical elements of a human...the soul ..which 'lives' on. Or the essence of a character- good/bad/nuturing/destroying.
The former I reckon or the soul.
Does the soul live on? Short answer no. The soul was cooked up by people afraid to die. Also and moreso in modern religions as a way of controlling immoral behavior....if you're bad in this life but get away with it you'll pay in the next!

Gradius

jobeenfitz wrote: »

That's an amazing story.

Out of curiosity I looked the place up. "Amazingly" it's still there.

Bang bang, in phibsborough.

Now if you have a quick look at their website and look at the stuff adorning their walls, like Che Guevara and other communist stuff, then you can more properly ascertain whether my seemingly outrageous story looks like it would happen in a place like that, or not.

Nothing wrong with the food, not criticising the place at all, besides that one "story" that happened there.

The shtick obviously works on people, so fair play to them.

B.A._Baracus

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Thanks, you did say you did a bit of trolling in your time... so I knew you'd appreciate the effort.

Btw, you're the one not attempting to formulate any sort of response to my points... you're merely trying to antagonise another poster, which sort of makes you the troll.

...Here... you can have your big spoon back now... I won't be needing it anymore! :P

Sure you don't need the spoon anymore? :pac:

One eyed Jack

Fourier wrote: »

Describing something as a "crisis" is not cultish behaviour. I just think that's over the top. When the facts suggest something will occur with very serious consequences then "crisis" is a fairly typical word to use. It might be wrong to use it, but it's hardly cultish.

It’s not the describing something as a crisis that’s the cultish behaviour, no, that’s just hysterics. The behaviour I’m referring to is the feverence with which some people promote their beliefs which are based upon their interpretations of the data as observed by actual climate scientists. I’m not saying that climate scientists themselves are pushing this mass hysteria and moral imperative, but rather the ‘movement’ as it were, of people who are promoting ideas that we only have 12 years to change our ways and so on.

Fourier wrote: »

What predicted outcomes are scientists and Adventists finding common ground in here?

Longer and healthier lifestyles for one thing. Adventists didn’t base their beliefs on scientific evidence, but scientific evidence shows that they are statistically more likely to live longer as a result of adhering to a set of beliefs also promoted by the World Health Organisation - no smoking, no drinking, no meat (not too sure about the World Health Organisations position on masturbation :pac: ), etc.

Fourier wrote: »

No, religions make basic moral claims. Most major religions don't just inform morality, they directly proscribe it. Religion and science aren't really similar in this regard, or basically any other regard.

Religions don’t make moral claims? They are simply as I suggested earlier - a conceptual framework, in the same way that science is a conceptual framework.

Fourier wrote: »

Okay, but here you are substituting modern spiritualism for religion. Most major religions do say they are the only correct religion which uniquely proscribes morality in an objectively correct way. You might personally take a more open minded modern eclectic view, but that's not what the actual faiths themselves do.

I’m really not. In the same way as people of any particular religious persuasion claim that theirs is the objective view of humanity and their perspective is the one that everyone else should live by, so too are there people of the ideological viewpoint that their idea of “science” provides an objective view of humanity and their perspective is the one that everyone should live by. Me personally, I would suggest that such people are just weird. You’re arguing as though religions don’t evolve, when in reality they wouldn’t have survived as long as they have if they weren’t constantly evolving. They just evolve very, verrrry slowly, over millennia. This is why I view ideas such as evolutionary psychology with what I consider to be a healthy degree of scepticism. Simply referring to a framework as a science does not make it so, and when it comes to evolutionary psychology, it’s proponents too think their perspective is the correct one, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Fourier

It’s not the describing something as a crisis that’s the cultish behaviour, no, that’s just hysterics

I think that's also incorrect I must say. The climate change problem is clear and pretty drastic in many ways. Much more minor things are called a "crisis" without those using the word being called hysterical.

Longer and healthier lifestyles for one thing. Adventists didn’t base their beliefs on scientific evidence, but scientific evidence shows that they are statistically more likely to live longer as a result of adhering to a set of beliefs

Okay, and? What has this got to do with the discussion?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religions don’t make moral claims?

I'm saying they do. I think it's clear they do. They aren't supposed to just inform morality, they undergird it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Me personally, I would suggest that such people are just weird. You’re arguing as though religions don’t evolve, when in reality they wouldn’t have survived as long as they have if they weren’t constantly evolving. They just evolve very, verrrry slowly, over millennia. This is why I view ideas such as evolutionary psychology with what I consider to be a healthy degree of scepticism. Simply referring to a framework as a science does not make it so, and when it comes to evolutionary psychology, it’s proponents too think their perspective is the correct one, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

I don't know what the link to biases in American psychological studies is about and I'm not claiming that religions don't evolve. I don't put much stock in evolutionary psychology myself, but again it just seems brought in for no reason.

In most major religions today they bedrock morality, not inform it.

One can call anything a conceptual "framework". A fantasy novel series provides a "conceptual framework" for stories. However there's no real similarity between a fantasy novel and science. Saying two things are both "conceptual frameworks" is so generic as to capture almost nothing. You might as well just say they are both "ideas".

Religions make basic metaphysical claims about reality and morality.
Science is a method for organising phenomena. You might then use what you learn to inform your morality, but that's unrelated to what science is in itself.

They aren't similar at all. I don't mean this to denigrate one or the other, but they're simply not really the same in any concrete sense.

One eyed Jack

I think the rest of it at this stage isn’t adding anything to the discussion, it’s clear they’re not great examples of the point I’m trying to make, so I’ll just try and address these points -

Fourier wrote: »

One can call anything a conceptual "framework". A fantasy novel series provides a "conceptual framework" for stories. However there's no real similarity between a fantasy novel and science. Saying two things are both "conceptual frameworks" is so generic as to capture almost nothing. You might as well just say they are both "ideas".

I do say both are just ideas, or a collection of ideas at least, which forms the framework.

Fourier wrote: »

Religions make basic metaphysical claims about reality and morality.
Science is a method for organising phenomena. You might then use what you learn to inform your morality, but that's unrelated to what science is in itself.

They aren't similar at all. I don't mean this to denigrate one or the other, but they're simply not really the same in any concrete sense.

I would argue that both religions and science provide distinct frameworks for understanding the nature of reality through observation of phenomena and using reasoning to provide explanations for these phenomena. I know you’re not denigrating one or the other, and I agree that they’re not the same in any concrete sense because they’re distinct frameworks each with their own standards of evidence required.

In the same way as I would regard religions capacity to inform morality, I would regard science as having an equal capacity to inform morality. The point the opening poster is making, and the point I agree with, is that a poor understanding of science* is being used by a growing number of people in order to judge a course of action as either moral or immoral, in the same way as a poor understanding of religions* were once (and to some extent still are) used to do the very same thing. The point being made was less about religions, and more about the increasing use of bad science to influence society. The issue isn’t religion or science, the issue is people’s motives.


*I’m being kind in giving those people the benefit of the doubt that they truly believe the actions they take are justifiable as intended to serve humanity for the common good, and that they aren’t being deliberately malicious and their actions aren’t primarily motivated by their own self-interest.

Fourier

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do say both are just ideas, or a collection of ideas at least, which forms the framework.

I just think that's so generic as to not really say anything interesting. Anything is an idea/collection of ideas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would argue that both religions and science provide distinct frameworks for understanding the nature of reality through observation of phenomena and using reasoning to provide explanations for these phenomena. I know you’re not denigrating one or the other, and I agree that they’re not the same in any concrete sense because they’re distinct frameworks each with their own standards of evidence required.

In the same way as I would regard religions capacity to inform morality, I would regard science as having an equal capacity to inform morality

I still think this is making science and religion sound more similar than they really are.

For example the Gospel of John claims that Jesus was a hypostasis of the Logos of God. That's not really meant to be open to repeated empirical testing controlled via statistics the same way a scientific idea is.

Similarly religion doesn't just inform morality it directly defines and underpins it. Religions make basic moral and ontological claims in a way scientific theories don't. They simply aren't similar in any real way beyond the vague "they're both ideas".

The thing is I agree with your main point that there are people uninformed about science who use it overconfidently to support other ideas they have. However I think you're making too strong an analogy between science and religion and conflating them in ways they can't be.

That said though since your main point is valid it's a bit stupid of me to be picking at this side issue.

Kaybaykwah

Always been partial to the multiplication of bread and wine in spite of the fact it usually means I have to go get some more. That's my bit od empiricism.

Risingshadoo

I think most people hate it because they were forced to go to church/pray etc. by their parents.

I love that quote in Pith Black when Riddick is talking to the holy man, and he says he believes in God but he totally hates him. That's a great scene

Potential-Monke

I was brought up religious, RC apparently. As a kid taking part as a good little boy, then doing the altar boy bouts you do, onto secondary school and I started to not like it (mainly because we also had to study religion, which at the time was all RC, nothing about other religions (this is mid 90's). Anyway, stopped going eventually, lived, grew up physically (still a child mentally) and went through a bout of hating religion because of all the bad shyte that comes from it.

Now, I really don't care what made up deity someone wants to believe in. But I still hate the fact that it has to be considered in nearly every aspect now. Religion should never interfere with anyone else. There should be no allowances for time off work/school/whatever to do something religious. Employers shouldn't have to ensure they're sensitive to different religions, the job is X and you're required to work Y, if your religion means you can't do X or Y all the time, then don't apply.

I also still detest the religions that have one sex, or race, superior to the other in the same religion (yes, mainly looking at you Islam). I know it looks like it's mainly against 1 religion, but that religion and some closely related ones, are just wrong on so many levels, it actually baffles me people still follow it. And I don't know every religion either, so I could be wrong on not liking some of them. But it's not just Islam. I had a work colleague who was allowed to take an hour off if he was working Sunday mornings in order to attend Mass. FFS. Myself and a mate joined the Order of Bacon. We got no such time off.

theological

I'd thought I'd resurrect this thread because the discussion is interesting.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religions don’t make moral claims? They are simply as I suggested earlier - a conceptual framework, in the same way that science is a conceptual framework.

I think the other poster is correct here. Religion and science aren't the same. As a Christian I think that's okay and it doesn't really cause me any great difficulty. Christianity often dwells in the unseen. In fact Christianity even goes as far as to argue that the unseen is more certain than the seen because everything that is seen comes from what is not seen. For example you can see this in this passage in Hebrews in the New Testament:

Hebrews 11:1-3 wrote:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Christianity isn't intended as a scientific method, and science isn't intended as a means for understanding what is meaningful and what is valuable on a philosophical level.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re arguing as though religions don’t evolve, when in reality they wouldn’t have survived as long as they have if they weren’t constantly evolving. They just evolve very, verrrry slowly, over millennia.

I would argue that if religions do evolve it is because of humans and not because of God and that evolution in respect to what God reveals doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Do we communicate the same truths in different ways for different ages, sure. But I don't think that is an evolution, just a change in communication method. The key principle is for example the truth of Christianity doesn't change, because we're told in Scripture that God doesn't change. He is immutable in His nature. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever for example (Hebrews 13:8).

If you find that someone is telling you something radically new about God, you can be sure that it is because it is from them and not from God.

Fourier wrote: »

So what you are saying is that science and religion have an equal basis to inform morality?

[...]

Religion itself provides a moral framework, it doesn't simply inform it. It's not that "some people use religion to proscribe...", it's that religions themselves present what they consider the correct moral framework. The Bible is meant to make objective moral claims. This isn't the same as using science to inform morality. There's no real consistent way to be religious and simply use it to inform your morality. It has to be the basis of morality.

This particular part of the discussion is fascinating. I don't think we can derive morality from science however. Scientific discoveries can be used for good or for ill. For example one can use evolutionary biology to conclude that eugenics is a good idea. Our consciences for the most part tell us that that is wrong however.

You're right to conclude that the Bible makes moral claims. However, people don't understand that the Bible doesn't claim that Christians are perfect. Christians are just rescued sinners, Jesus Christ had to die for them for that reason (Romans 5:8-9). I'm no better than anyone else, I've just realised that I need to be forgiven and to start afresh with God's help.

Any religion that says you need to perform to get in God's good books is bound to fail, because human beings are sinful and will fall short on a daily basis. Christianity stands as being unique because it rejects the performance model and says we need God's forgiveness and mercy every day and that a sacrifice was offered once and for all to enable that to happen. Better still, not only does God say we're forgiven if we trust Christ, God gives us His Holy Spirit to guide us every day and to convict us of the truth. We have a relationship with God where we can call Him our Father, and we can be His adopted sons and daughters. From what I can tell that's also unique to Christianity.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In just the same way as one scientific discipline is not the only source of evidence pertaining to scientific inquiry, the Bible is not the only source of evidence when it comes to theological inquiry. In the same way, the idea that there is no real consistent way to be religious and simply use that to inform morality appears to be based upon the idea that there is only one religion, or to put it in terms of scientific inquiry, as though there is only one way to observe a phenomenon, which can be used to inform morality. Historically speaking, that approach has often had a detrimental effect on society, whether it be religion that was used, or science that was used, to inform morality.

This is a Catholic idea. Not a Protestant one. As an evangelical Protestant I would see the Bible as the only reliable source in respect to how God has acted in history, who Jesus was and what He has done and what that means for me today.

In respect to how many ways there are. Christianity is clear to say that there is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ:

John 14:6 wrote:

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:11-12 wrote:

This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

It is a post-modern idea that there are many ways up the mountain, but logically speaking A and NOT A cannot be both true.