Atheism

Originally posted by TacDavey
The concept of religion in general doesn't do that, though. Obviously you can say if someone formed a religion that said anything to do with science was evil and should be destroy, then that religion would affect the growth of science (If scientific minds actually believed in it/ were affected by it's followers). That isn't religion's fault, though.

I actually think at its core there are inherent hostilities

religion, by almost tautological definition, makes claims about the universe that, if false, undermine the religion. This makes some "religious truths" essentially inscrutable. Science, at its best, is the opposite of this. No current truth being found incorrect undermines science in a way that would make those in power within the scientific community act to repress contradictory evidence, whereas, this is seen in every religion I can think of, with a possible tongue in cheek exception of buddhism

religion needs some things to be true to exist. Thus, questioning those things is inherently breeds hostilities.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not almost suggesting anything. I am saying it outright. Some people are just stupid, I agree there. But yes, remove organized religion and you'd have a more scientifically literate populace.

university education is positively correlated with belief in ghosts

Originally posted by Digi
Disagree entirely. It actively inhibits scientific inquiry, going so far as to create open animosity in people toward scientific facts that undermine their faith. You say religion doesn't do this in concept. Screw "in concept." That's just your interpretation. In reality, it happens all the time.

I disagree. Sure, there are those who choose to reject scientific knowledge in favor of religion, but that is the individuals fault, not the religions.

As a matter of fact, according to Christianity you are suppose to be informed about these things.

Originally posted by Digi
Disagree again, and I'd use the earlier data I posted as evidence. Religious affiliations do affect exposure to certain types of knowledge. If you hang around people who only wear 1950's clothing, you'll have a much harder time understanding or explaining modern fashions.

You are mixing "uniformed" with "religious" and making them the same thing. That isn't true. People who hang around uninformed people may have a harder time being informed. The simple act of being religious does not make you uniformed. As I said before, Christianity even pushes for it's followers to study these things.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not almost suggesting anything. I am saying it outright. Some people are just stupid, I agree there. But yes, remove organized religion and you'd have a more scientifically literate populace.

I disagree, but I don't think we can go much farther than that. Religion isn't the cause of scientific illiteracy. The individuals are. Religion does not require it's followers to be anti-science.

Originally posted by Digi
Straw man. I'm not refuting his existence. Maybe I should've just left it at Eden and the Ark to make my point. This is missing my point entirely. An unreliable book says it, so we accept that over facts. That is, undeniably, how numerous Christians approach reality.

Accept what over facts? What scientific finding has directly contradicted the Bible?

Originally posted by Digi

Science is only compatible with very specific ideas of God, ideas that almost always aren't aligned with those of any major religions. If there were really no conflict, as you say, we wouldn't see a pronounced ideological war being waged between the two "camps." I dislike the war, as I call it, but that fact doesn't wish it out of existence.

haermm

Originally posted by inimalist
I actually think at its core there are inherent hostilities

religion, by almost tautological definition, makes claims about the universe that, if false, undermine the religion. This makes some "religious truths" essentially inscrutable. Science, at its best, is the opposite of this. No current truth being found incorrect undermines science in a way that would make those in power within the scientific community act to repress contradictory evidence, whereas, this is seen in every religion I can think of, with a possible tongue in cheek exception of buddhism

religion needs some things to be true to exist. Thus, questioning those things is inherently breeds hostilities.

If someone becomes hostile toward someone for questioning their beliefs, that is still the person's fault. Not the beliefs fault.

If someone where to question someone's feminist beliefs, and that person grew hostile, you wouldn't blame feminism.

.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I agree completely. My point was that even if religion breeds complacency, it affects the furthering of science very little.

So if religion breeds complacency, and religion is removed, we would have a lot more people in our society being further educated with science.

And with that many more people agreeing that science is more logical and going with that over religion, we would have that many more people open to learning and furthering the society as a whole in science.

You say its the persons fault, not the religions, that they reject science.

What about the bible? Does it not state that the earth is 5,000 years old?
If you are believing what the bible says then you are rejecting science, and vice versa.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I disagree. Sure, there are those who choose to reject scientific knowledge in favor of religion, but that is the individuals fault, not the religions.

As a matter of fact, according to Christianity you are suppose to be informed about these things.

You are mixing "uniformed" with "religious" and making them the same thing. That isn't true. People who hang around uninformed people may have a harder time being informed. The simple act of being religious does not make you uniformed. As I said before, Christianity even pushes for it's followers to study these things.

You're casting a blind eye to the multitude of religious sects (most of them entirely mainstream) and religious individuals that either A. are openly hostile toward science, B. at best are indifferent toward science, and/or C. not actively promoting scientific literacy.

But if you want to think that Christianity actively promotes scientific literacy, and that this is somehow a norm, be my guest.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I disagree, but I don't think we can go much farther than that. Religion isn't the cause of scientific illiteracy. The individuals are. Religion does not require it's followers to be anti-science.

Individual ignorance is largely a product of cultural surroundings. And for many (we could point to creationists, Young Earth-ers, "Argument From Design"-ers, or those that just tacitly accept that God created everything) it is the direct product of religion.

It's not that it's teaching "anti-science" (though in some cases, yes, it is), it's more that it's providing an answer that isn't compatible with science, yet teaching people to uncritically accept it as truth.

What are individuals without context? You can't just say that it's only individuals without placing some of the influence on their worldview and culture.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Accept what over facts? What scientific finding has directly contradicted the Bible?

Well, it's directly overturned a literal interpretation of much of the Old Testament, for starters. A metaphoric interpretation of such passages is a relatively new historical development, because it became so silly due to scientific findings.

But again, burden of proof. It's not the responsibility of science to say "here's evidence against the Bible" (though it has, on occasion), it's Christianity's job to provide rational justification for any part of the Bible, which is has not done.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If someone becomes hostile toward someone for questioning their beliefs, that is still the person's fault. Not the beliefs fault.

If someone where to question someone's feminist beliefs, and that person grew hostile, you wouldn't blame feminism.

that's not what I'm saying though

I'm saying religion, by its nature, must include "facts" that have to be true. The ressurection of Christ for instance. If that is not true, there is no logical meaning to Christianity. Therefore, anything that questions if Christ was ressurected is going to produce hostility.

All religions have these things.

To your feminism example, I wouldn't call it something as specific as "feminism", but certainly "ideologies".

Like, for instance, I'm an anarchist. By believing in this as a form of human social organization, there are things I have to believe, or else there is no logic to me being an "anarchist". So, evidence that suggests that some form of centralized state is required for proper societal function does cause inherent hostilities with my belief system, and in such a way that you would probably want to take anything I say "scientifically" about the state (which I honestly try not to do anyways, I know my bias) with a grain of salt.

Similarly, anything a religious person says about the science that questions things core to their religion should probably not be taken as the most honest endeavor.

I don't see how you think I'm blaming religion for anything... you are American, yes?

Originally posted by cool_ghost
So if religion breeds complacency, and religion is removed, we would have a lot more people in our society being further educated with science.

And with that many more people agreeing that science is more logical and going with that over religion, we would have that many more people open to learning and furthering the society as a whole in science.

You say its the persons fault, not the religions, that they reject science.

What about the bible? Does it not state that the earth is 5,000 years old?
If you are believing what the bible says then you are rejecting science, and vice versa.

Actually, the Bible does not say that at all. There are those who study the Bible hat seem to think this is the case, but it is never dictated that way.

As for the "furthering of science" you cannot expect that people who do not have an answer for something will seek that answer. I know just as many atheists who know nothing about the origins of the universe as I do Christians.

Just because you take away their answer, doesn't mean they will seek a new one. If they are the type of person to complacently accept an answer without doing research, they obviously don't care enough to study the material. If they care enough to study the material, they won't complacently accept answers.

People are complacent because they choose to be, not because religion makes them that way. If they don't have religion as a complacent answer, they will complacently accept whatever the experts are telling them. The only thing that will change in that example is which answer they complacently choose to accept.

Originally posted by Digi
You're casting a blind eye to the multitude of religious sects (most of them entirely mainstream) and religious individuals that either A. are openly hostile toward science, B. at best are indifferent toward religion, and/or C. not actively promoting scientific literacy.

But if you want to think that Christianity actively promotes scientific literacy, and that this is somehow a norm, be my guest.

It's true that most people don't study cosmology, or things like that. But you are placing the blame for that where it does not belong.

Sure, there are a lot of religious people who are hostile towards science. I'm not rejecting that. But that isn't the religions fault. Especially when the religion tells you to be at least moderately well versed in the stuff (Most people don't anyway, again, not the religion's fault, it's the persons).

There are a lot of scientifically uniformed people in the world. You want to blame this on religion, but that isn't where the blame belongs. Religion doesn't tell them to be uninformed (it tells them the opposite), they do that on their own.

Originally posted by Digi
Individual ignorance is largely a product of cultural surroundings. And for many (we could point to creationists, Young Earth-ers, "Argument From Design"-ers, or those that just tacitly accept that God created everything) it is the direct product of religion.

It's not that it's teaching "anti-science" (though in some cases, yes, it is), it's more that it's providing an answer that isn't compatible with science, yet teaching people to uncritically accept it as truth.

What are individuals without context? You can't just say that it's only individuals without placing some of the influence on their worldview and culture.

I do. The thing is, religion doesn't instruct them to be uninformed. Meaning, they get their "uninformedness" from somewhere else. It's their choice to be uninformed.

Say their is a teacher that tells her students not to chew gum in class. The vast majority of students chew gum in class anyway. Is it the teachers fault her students chew gum? No. They chose to chew gum all on their own. Their actions to chew gum are not, in any way, linked to the teacher. Especially when the teacher told them to do the opposite.

You are doing the same thing with religion. Placing the blame where it does not belong.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, it's directly overturned a literal interpretation of much of the Old Testament, for starters. A metaphoric interpretation of such passages is a relatively new historical development, because it became so silly due to scientific findings.

But again, burden of proof. It's not the responsibility of science to say "here's evidence against the Bible" (though it has, on occasion), it's Christianity's job to provide rational justification for any part of the Bible, which is has not done.

As far as I know, the only story from the Old Testament that has been deemed absolutely metaphorical is Jonah and the Whale. I have heard of no other scientific findings that contradict the Old Testament.

Originally posted by inimalist
that's not what I'm saying though

I'm saying religion, by its nature, must include "facts" that have to be true. The ressurection of Christ for instance. If that is not true, there is no logical meaning to Christianity. Therefore, anything that questions if Christ was ressurected is going to produce hostility.

All religions have these things.

To your feminism example, I wouldn't call it something as specific as "feminism", but certainly "ideologies".

Like, for instance, I'm an anarchist. By believing in this as a form of human social organization, there are things I have to believe, or else there is no logic to me being an "anarchist". So, evidence that suggests that some form of centralized state is required for proper societal function does cause inherent hostilities with my belief system, and in such a way that you would probably want to take anything I say "scientifically" about the state (which I honestly try not to do anyways, I know my bias) with a grain of salt.

Similarly, anything a religious person says about the science that questions things core to their religion should probably not be taken as the most honest endeavor.

Right. So if people question things other people believe in, they might become hostile. I would agree with that.

Isn't that true with just about every belief, though? Not just religious belief?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how you think I'm blaming religion for anything... you are American, yes?

Yes. Why?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Right. So if people question things other people believe in, they might become hostile. I would agree with that.

Isn't that true with just about every belief, though? Not just religious belief?

sure, that is one of the things I love about science, it is subversive of everything, in theory even of itself. in terms of an approach to knowledge, there is nothing else that challenges institutions of control like science does, because it challenges and undermines these truths.

my point about it causing inherent hostility with religion isn't diminished simply because it challenges other institutions as well

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes. Why?

I find, for some reason I'm not entirely aware of, that Americans have a unique interest in blame. not really trying to be critical, it just seems like it is a crucial part of how your culture understands things.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As far as I know, the only story from the Old Testament that has been deemed absolutely metaphorical is Jonah and the Whale. I have heard of no other scientific findings that contradict the Old Testament.

The Adam and Eve story, Noah's Ark, and Jonah's whale are the ones that come to mind.

Originally posted by inimalist
I find, for some reason I'm not entirely aware of, that Americans have a unique interest in blame. not really trying to be critical, it just seems like it is a crucial part of how your culture understands things.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, the Bible does not say that at all. There are those who study the Bible hat seem to think this is the case, but it is never dictated that way.

As for the "furthering of science" you cannot expect that people who do not have an answer for something will seek that answer. I know just as many atheists who know nothing about the origins of the universe as I do Christians.

Just because you take away their answer, doesn't mean they will seek a new one. If they are the type of person to complacently accept an answer without doing research, they obviously don't care enough to study the material. If they care enough to study the material, they won't complacently accept answers.

If I am correct the bible implied, not directly stated, the earth is 6000 years old, as the first human was born sometime around there. I dont know how you can say it was "never dictated" that way when every priest/pastor ive ever talked to told me the bible reveals the earth is about 6000 years old. But that was not the point anyways, I could easily use another fact... the bible says god created the earth, yet science says different. If they believe one, they are obviously rejecting the other, so anyone who believes "god" created the earth is rejecting science, and all they are doing is believing what the bible says. Religion does stop many people who follow its beliefs in seeking an answer, which is slowing the furthering of science any way you look at it. That was my point.

I can't expect all people who don't have an answer to seek an answer, but I can expect some. What your trying to imply is if religion was abolished, that every person would stay complacent and stop thinking and looking for answers, and this is absurd. For how many people take religion over science, the odds are that at least some of them will want to fill that answer if religion was out of the picture.

Originally posted by TacDavey
People are complacent because they choose to be, not because religion makes them that way. If they don't have religion as a complacent answer, they will complacently accept whatever the experts are telling them. The only thing that will change in that example is which answer they complacently choose to accept.

So your telling me that people who do complacently except religion (for whatever reason, they were raised that way, they actually believe it, etc.) that if religion was abolished that none of them would look to find another answer? Thats ignorant, its only odds on my side for how many people there are, that at least a handful would want to find real answers and fill that void.

And even with all this, I haven't even mentioned the fact that if religion was abolished, every new born baby would not be brainwashed and given "religion" as an answer to everything at an early age, which would breed a lot more curiosity in these children. if science is taught to a child, without religion, they would have a greater chance to grow up a lot less complacent (because science is all about knowing, to never stop learning, theories, anything can end up wrong, nothing is guaranteed) while if a child is given "god" as an answer for everything that needs no further thought, he has a greater chance of being complacent when in the subject of science, as his answer is already "god did it".

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, that is one of the things I love about science, it is subversive of everything, in theory even of itself. in terms of an approach to knowledge, there is nothing else that challenges institutions of control like science does, because it challenges and undermines these truths.

my point about it causing inherent hostility with religion isn't diminished simply because it challenges other institutions as well

So you're saying any hostility religion may hold towards science is the same hostility any belief system would hold just by being a belief system. Why, then, single out religion?

Originally posted by inimalist
I find, for some reason I'm not entirely aware of, that Americans have a unique interest in blame. not really trying to be critical, it just seems like it is a crucial part of how your culture understands things.

I blame Canada.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Adam and Eve story, Noah's Ark, and Jonah's whale are the ones that come to mind.

What scientific findings refute those stories?

Originally posted by cool_ghost
http://bridavis.chickenfactory.net/timeline.htm
http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

If I am correct the bible implied, not directly stated, the earth is 6000 years old, as the first human was born sometime around there. I dont know how you can say it was "never dictated" that way when every priest/pastor ive ever talked to told me the bible reveals the earth is about 6000 years old. But that was not the point anyways, I could easily use another fact... the bible says god created the earth, yet science says different. If they believe one, they are obviously rejecting the other, so anyone who believes "god" created the earth is rejecting science, and all they are doing is believing what the bible says. Religion does stop many people who follow its beliefs in seeking an answer, which is slowing the furthering of science any way you look at it. That was my point.

What does science say that contradicts the idea God created the earth?

Originally posted by cool_ghost
I can't expect all people who don't have an answer to seek an answer, but I can expect some. What your trying to imply is if religion was abolished, that every person would stay complacent and stop thinking and looking for answers, and this is absurd. For how many people take religion over science, the odds are that at least some of them will want to fill that answer if religion was out of the picture.

So your telling me that people who do complacently except religion (for whatever reason, they were raised that way, they actually believe it, etc.) that if religion was abolished that [b]none of them would look to find another answer? Thats ignorant, its only odds on my side for how many people there are, that at least a handful would want to find real answers and fill that void. [/B]

I disagree. Religion doesn't make people complacent. They are that way on their own. All you would be doing is taking away one of their complacently accepted answers. Doing this won't make people not complacent. They'll just find another answer that they can accept. If they have no drive to learn about things, they have no drive to learn about them. That's a personal trait, not a religious one.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
And even with all this, I haven't even mentioned the fact that if religion was abolished, every new born baby would not be brainwashed and given "religion" as an answer to everything at an early age, which would breed a lot more curiosity in these children. if science is taught to a child, without religion, they would have a greater chance to grow up a lot less complacent (because science is all about knowing, to never stop learning, theories, anything can end up wrong, nothing is guaranteed) while if a child is given "god" as an answer for everything that needs no further thought, he has a greater chance of being complacent when in the subject of science, as his answer is already "god did it".

And you don't think a child who is taught that the world was made by a giant explosion would learn to just complacently accept that answer? Why does the answer the child chooses to accept determine if they are complacent or not?

They will either be the type of person to seek out answers or they wont. Taking religion out of their learning system won't change that because religion doesn't teach that you should be complacent. As I've said before, it actually teaches the exact opposite.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So you're saying any hostility religion may hold towards science is the same hostility any belief system would hold just by being a belief system. Why, then, single out religion?

I didn't

though, the type of truths religion holds might make it more or less hostile in some cases

Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't

though, the type of truths religion holds might make it more or less hostile in some cases

Then to go back to the earlier question of "what about when religion breeds hostility to science?" I would say that, according to you, almost all belief systems breed hostility to science.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Then to go back to the earlier question of "what about when religion breeds hostility to science?" I would say that, according to you, almost all belief systems breed hostility to science.

I don't understand your point...

why is that a significant distinction?

Originally posted by TacDavey
As far as I know, the only story from the Old Testament that has been deemed absolutely metaphorical is Jonah and the Whale. I have heard of no other scientific findings that contradict the Old Testament.

Then you're very, very sheltered. And also continuing to ignore my point about burden of proof. You're asking the wrong questions of either side.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What does science say that contradicts the idea God created the earth?

Something along the lines of this :http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_was_the_Earth_formed

Originally posted by TacDavey
I disagree. Religion doesn't make people complacent. They are that way on their own. All you would be doing is taking away one of their complacently accepted answers. Doing this won't make people not complacent. They'll just find another answer that they can accept. If they have no drive to learn about things, they have no drive to learn about them. That's a personal trait, not a religious one.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And you don't think a child who is taught that the world was made by a giant explosion would learn to just complacently accept that answer? Why does the answer the child chooses to accept determine if they are complacent or not?

They will either be the type of person to seek out answers or they wont. Taking religion out of their learning system won't change that because religion doesn't teach that you should be complacent. As I've said before, it actually teaches the exact opposite.

Exactly... a child taught something that makes logical sense, but gave the proposal that it may be incorrect, would make them think. They choose wether or not they think its correct based off the evidence shown them. Thats the difference between science and religion, science does not claim anything unless its an actual fact, religion claims so many things but based off of practically nothing. A child is taught to complacently accept religion because religion claims that it is right, correct, and that god does exist. Science does not breed complacency, as there is always the chance it may be wrong, and scientists admit that. If you are 100% certain of something, thinking stops about that subject. I am certain that I am 18 years of age, so I do not need to think any further about it. Science promotes trial and error, as finding error in things is good, so you can improve.

Obviously this is something we do not agree on, I believe religion is completely pointless, and society as a whole would be better and more intelligent if it had not existed.