The Science of Christianity

[charles brough]

Buffy, you start right off with "supernaturally established stability" and immediately ended the discussion for me. Sorry you had to put in so much in attempting to answer my question, but non-natural cause and effect reasoning is not science and is of no interest to me. Its fit only for the relgiious forums.

[InfiniteNow]

Buffy, you start right off with "supernaturally established stability" and immediately ended the discussion for me. Sorry you had to put in so much in attempting to answer my question, but non-natural cause and effect reasoning is not science and is of no interest to me. Its fit only for the relgiious forums.

 

Charles, you seem to have COMPLETELY missed the point. Buffy was not explaining anything using supernatural causes. She was describing how past hierarchies have been maintained and enforced, and how many people engaged in this enforcement by describing the supernatural, thus ensuring their operations and setup could not be challenged... primarily because they'd been put in place by some divine ethereal power, not some mortal who could be overthrown.

 

Perhaps you SHOULD now go back and actually read what she has written.

[LaurieAG]

Democracy can indeed turn into anarchy, and until suffrage was universal (unlike the much earlier Greek and Roman attempts at democracy, where only those with high social status had a vote) it was not possible to sustain it.

 

Hi Buffy,

 

Pardon me for butting in but the only greeks who couldn't vote in ancient Greece were women and male prostitutes and all roman citizens had the right to vote in their centuries if necessary.

 

BTW 'universal suffrage' only started in 1893 in New Zealand.

 

Women's suffrage in New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[khimaros]

 

There's actually nothing *inherently* wrong with God-led government, in fact its arguable that it is evolutionarily superior as a mechanism for maintaining "social organisms."

 

Buffy

 

If i may join the discussion, Buffy, i agree with everything you say apart from the first part of the above. Whilst god-led governments may be more stable and a religious society more easily controlled, there is something inherently wrong with them. Just because historically they are intrinsically linked, there's no reason for them to be anymore. I live in england and the growing muslim population here are pushing to have more muslim representatives in our government. I'm fundamentally opposed to this because religion and politics have nothing to do with each other. (If their argument was to increase the number of asian politicians to reflect their population in our society, fine, but political/religious links are archaic and have no place in a modern society).

 

Secondly, and to the OP, Science is the antithesis of religion, which, by definition relies on faith, and is rigid insofar as the fundamental teachings of religion are not to question faith. They all (as far as i'm aware) have scriptures which are effectively set in stone, which means even if puplic opinion changes, their rules cannot. eg. contraception for catholics, gays for christians etc.

 

Conversely, science is based on repeating events in a controlled environment to define rules upon which models can be built to best reflect the most probable outcome of an event; until a better model is created. This is a constantly evolving state where those practicing it will repeatedly try to disprove their own theories, which is the total opposite of religion...

[charles brough]

Charles, you seem to have COMPLETELY missed the point. Buffy was not explaining anything using supernatural causes. She was describing how past hierarchies have been maintained and enforced, and how many people engaged in this enforcement by describing the supernatural, thus ensuring their operations and setup could not be challenged... primarily because they'd been put in place by some divine ethereal power, not some mortal who could be overthrown.

 

Perhaps you SHOULD now go back and actually read what she has written.

 

Yes, I did re-read it and recognize that she did not mean what she in fact literally said. Yes, she did mean that it was only because people believed "gods" gave them their power to rule---not that they existed.

It is a good point she makes. However, most history is slanted so favorably to our modern form of constitutional government that we overlook the long periods in the human story when the rulers were deeply and truly loved by their subjects. This is in marked contrast with the widespread disillusionment felt by Americans now for their government, its failures and its indemic special interest corruption. Indeed, the early Kings of New Kingdom Egypt were adored and respected as gods. Masses gathered all over Egypt to go and build the pyramids. No compulsion was used and they were well taken care of. They had good medical attention and housing.

 

Civilization is cyclical, of course, and some of the pyramids were later finished with slave labour.

 

The great cathedrals of Europe were also built by volunteer labor. People depended upon their rulers because the human being is an evolved hunting/gathering group species with each group instinctively held together by a few dominant males. It is in our nature and explains why Pres. Bush had so much power and got more in the several years following 9/11.

 

Mostly, the kings in Europe were adored by their subjects. As was secular Napoleon. Amazingly, most non-Jewish Germans felt the same towards Hitler!

The reason for the downfall of the monarchal system had to do with the need to keep governments from collapsing into little kingdoms for each of the many

Protestant sects that were spreading.

 

Regarding Marxism, Buffy was thinking of Marx's philosophy while I think of the actuall system in East Asia that is its heritage. History is not a matter of what would have or could have or might have happened but what did happen---and what did happen was always the sum total of the cause and effect that led to it. Marx's philosophy could not have evolved any other way or place, and the way it did evolve in Russia, and suceed.

 

If one interprets my words as Christian, they are not reading carefully what I write. I am an atheist and see real social science as a science that is objective enough to see relgion as the natural selection tool with which our human race has achieved its present civilization. "Religion's of the past have been "spirit"-based, but any world-view can do the same if its world view way of thinking just takes certain form I describe in detail elsewhere---as did the defective philosophy of Karl Marx, ending in the "secular" religion of Boshevism and then East Asian Marxism.

 

( That ought to be enough for now. . . )

[Buffy]

However, most history is slanted so favorably to our modern form of constitutional government that we overlook the long periods in the human story when the rulers were deeply and truly loved by their subjects.

"long periods"? I guess that's a subjective statement, but "loved" and "dangerous and pointless to question" are two entirely separate things, and unfortunately it is very hard to gauge the difference from so far in the future! I think that most of your examples are in this vein, subject to being taken with a block of salt: if you're trying to build a case that monarchy was wonderful and democracy sucks, you're not going to prove much with these "interpretations" of history....but you should also carefully read how I respond to khimaros below on this topic!

This is in marked contrast with the widespread disillusionment felt by Americans now for their government, its failures and its indemic special interest corruption.

Again, quite a subjective statement: its hard to argue against, but I'd ask you to distinguish between "governmental system" and the "idiots who are running the joint"...

The reason for the downfall of the monarchal system had to do with the need to keep governments from collapsing into little kingdoms for each of the many Protestant sects that were spreading.

Well, no. Monarchal systems have fallen almost exclusively via overthrow of unpopular rulers (in fact I'm hard pressed to find any splits that have come from the development of "Protestant sects"; want to mention some examples?). The replacements have not always been perfect, sometimes convulsing between democracy and autocracy, but a common thread that has been an overarching trend has been increasing secularization of society, ultimately raising the question, "who *says* you ought to be King?" The increasing growth and influence of the moneyed class made answering this question imperative, going back to the middle ages (the Magna Carta left the King a constitutional leadership role, but power really still devolved to the people, albeit slowly and requiring another 600 years of democratic evolution!).

Regarding Marxism, Buffy was thinking of Marx's philosophy while I think of the actuall system in East Asia that is its heritage. ... Marx's philosophy could not have evolved any other way or place, and the way it did evolve in Russia, and suceed. ..."Religion's of the past have been "spirit"-based, but any world-view can do the same if its world view way of thinking just takes certain form I describe in detail elsewhere---as did the defective philosophy of Karl Marx, ending in the "secular" religion of Boshevism and then East Asian Marxism.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, although the whole point about Marxism in your first post above was that you seemed to be using it as a pejorative example of illegitimate denunciation of religion. I can see your point that Leninism, Maoism and other Communist movements were personality cults, but they were dictatorships based on Mao's line that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." You can argue that a "personality cult" is "like a religion" but given that that "belief" is only needed among those whose payback comes from being the ones controlling "the barrel of the gun" I don't think its a very convincing argument, and is beyond the scope of this thread, so you might want to start a new one if you want to pursue this thought.

There's actually nothing *inherently* wrong with God-led government, in fact its arguable that it is evolutionarily superior as a mechanism for maintaining "social organisms."

If i may join the discussion, Buffy, i agree with everything you say apart from the first part of the above. Whilst god-led governments may be more stable and a religious society more easily controlled, there is something inherently wrong with them. Just because historically they are intrinsically linked, there's no reason for them to be anymore.

I did not say that political systems that invoke God to justify wielding power do not have potential problems or that they are even sustainable in today's world without causing pain and suffering. Similar to what Charles is arguing above, its clear that such "God-led" political entities were in fact quite successful throughout history and at least when the *right* ruler was in place, most of the subjects were quite happy!

 

What has changed radically especially in the last hundred years has been dramatic intermixing of people with differing religious beliefs and an increasing tolerance (albeit with some very strong and even violent backlashes among dogmatic "true believers") of varied religious beliefs. In such societies, having power emanate from God is simply impossible without one group having some advantage over all others, and as such they cannot survive much longer, which is why we continue to see movement toward democratic "power from the people"-based governments. The only exceptions are those that have highly homogeneous populations, and that is going away.

I live in england and the growing muslim population here are pushing to have more muslim representatives in our government. I'm fundamentally opposed to this because religion and politics have nothing to do with each other.

Be careful not to throw everyone in one basket: there are certainly extremists who "demand" proportional representation and in the process show their ignorance of democracy (ignorance that is useful because its their followers who are ignorant of the law, and cunning of these leaders who exploit these mostly immigrant followers), but most who say "we want Muslim representatives" are only arguing that they should band together as a group and vote in one of their own, which you indicate correctly is fully within their rights.

Secondly, and to the OP, Science is the antithesis of religion, which, by definition relies on faith, and is rigid insofar as the fundamental teachings of religion are not to question faith. They all (as far as i'm aware) have scriptures which are effectively set in stone, which means even if puplic opinion changes, their rules cannot. eg. contraception for catholics, gays for christians etc.

And thus as to the "Science" of any religious belief, the key question is, "who says that its set in stone?" Even fundamentalists who insist that the written works are "from God" and cannot be questioned, there is *always* room for interpretation, and the ability of the organized religions to adapt to human society is the *only* way they will survive. Its okay if they deny that the process is "adapting the religion to society"--that would be blasphemous--but if they make "successful adaptations of their religious genetics" they will survive!

 

Democracy can indeed turn into anarchy, and until suffrage was universal (unlike the much earlier Greek and Roman attempts at democracy, where only those with high social status had a vote) it was not possible to sustain it.

Pardon me for butting in but the only greeks who couldn't vote in ancient Greece were women and male prostitutes and all roman citizens had the right to vote in their centuries if necessary.

You're quite right: the term "high social status" was an overstatement. Of course leaving out over half of the population in Greece, and counting all those folks who did not qualify for Roman citizenship (if you weren't born a citizen in Rome itself, you had to serve in the Roman Legion in order to earn it, or you were a slave, etc), I'm still not sure you can call these examples of even "partial universal" suffrage! :)

'universal suffrage' only started in 1893 in New Zealand.

Nah: the sheep still can't vote.... :evil:

 

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you! :phones:

Buffy

[charles brough]

Yes, I did misunderstand what Buffy meant. She does mean only that people BELIEVED the supernatural explanations--not necessarily she.

I hate long and involved posts quoting quotes and prepared a long one anyway several days ago anyway but it got lost. Ugh!

 

How about, perhaps, one point per post? Your first point seems to be that

"democracy" did not exist until we escaped from belief in the supernatural. That would be a quick and simple way to state it and I would respond that people in Dark Ages of our civilization lived in egalitarian communes or true democracy. When they became repeatedly put upon by gangs of thugs, they started paying tribute so the band or gang would stay and protect them from other gangs. The gangs developed into the Feudal aristocracy. I fail to see how that can be explained by belief in the supernatural. In Old Kingdom Egypt the people loved their king and actually volunteered their labor to build the pyramids. Present Presidents have to sneak around to be safe. It was the same in Medieval times. The great Cathederals were built by volunteers. Most people loved their kings mostly thru up until about the 15th century or so. Then, we had to break down the long-built-up connection of gov. to religion because the Protestant Reformation led to an accelerating division of the sociey's ideological system, leading to wars between the sects that were tearing apart the various European kingdoms.

 

I know my interpretation of things is very different and so, seems wrong to you, but I have good reason to do so and do stick right to the data. I do so by using only one single definition for all the key words and am uncompromising in enterpreting it all atheistically and objectively. My picture of things is not an emotional one as you suggest.

 

Despite all our "tolerance" doctrines and "diverxsity is good" doctrines, we are a social group species that thrives on their own group (read: religion/race bonded society) competition and even antagonism with the other ones. Until we got bogged down in Iraq, the President built power by warring on Islam. If we get another big terrorist attack, he will take us to war against Iran.

 

You speak of proof. There is no such thing. All we humans achieve is a more accurate understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. All human actions are dictated by what they believe. Ideological systems undergo a natural selection process. It is not emotional to say that!

 

You make a point re. Marxism. I am not, myself, interested in the philosophy of Karl Marx but that is a different subject. I am also not dealing with the academic Marxists. By "Marxists" I am referring to the world-view and way of thinking system that evolved into Bolshevism and then Maoism and now the mixed up system presently in East Asia. People call it "communism" but it claims to be "socialist" while operating a capitalistic economy. And the system is definitely authoritarian. Right?

 

I make the point that humans cannot do good without God? I am an atheist and never indicated any such thing! We are a social primate and our repitoire of social instincts is the foundation for our moral systems. We just credit them to gods.

 

Sorry, Buffy, but I'm growing tired of this long response. I like to be brief. If you don't like what I write, why not just pick something special out and I'll be happy to deal with it!