motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 i am interested in a discussion concerning the idea that religion should be expunged from society. a while ago i happen to see a program about mr. dawkins in which he was using the example of a bottom dwelling fish to show how the universe is not the result of design and a moment of absurdity hit me when the camera closed in on a young boy in the audience. here is a man demonstrating to children why there is no god. the problem i personally have with this is that i believe human awareness and the resulting fear of cessation is not intentional and can be detrimental to the ability of the average brain to function neccesitating belief in an afterlife where the conscious mind remains intact. unless people begin to alter themselves radically through genetic experimentation i think this will remain the case. i think dawkins argument typifies an arrogant denial in some scientists that all minds are not alike and that all people are not capable of finding comfort in atheistic science. thoughts?
Tormod Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 VERY interesting post. Thanks for starting a thread on this. Can you clarify one point for me: What exactly is it that you have a problem with? That people are afraid of dying (and thus find comfort in God), or that a philosopher tries to convince them that there is no god?
IrishEyes Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 i think dawkins argument typifies an arrogant denial in some scientists that all minds are not alike and that all people are not capable of finding comfort in atheistic science. I LOVE this statement!I have to say that I have felt much the same for a very long time. And honestly, the longer I stay here at Hypography, the more obvious this seems to me. Just as there are different personality types, there surely have to be different 'mindsets', that are a direct result not only of your environment but also of your physiology. I am going to do some more studying, because I remember reading about this recently, so I will try to find some hard evidence to support this. However, in looking at a number of people at this site, it seems very obvious, doesn't it? Of course, you will still get asked to define the "mind", I'm sure. And that will almost certainly cement it for me... ;)
Fishteacher73 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 I think just as there is frictiion among people from the argument that "all people are equal" and the continual findings that specific groups excell in various abilities (and we are starting to find physiological variations in brain development) there will some people that are better equipped to deal with the concept of a mortality that is not a just a segue into another existence. I think it is odd that it seems that there is an direct relationship to the people that accept an eternal life but argue the concept of infinity.
Stargazer Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 Science is not meant to give comfort, it's meant to provide the methods to reveal how nature works. Personally, I find pleasure from knowing instead of simply believing. I could of course decide to believe something that's simply not true, or at least completely unsupported, but I can assure you, I would feel horrible. I would actually know that I can't make things add up, I would know that I believe something that is not even close to be confirmed or at worst, something that's completely false. Obviously, science can give comfort, safety and prolong our lives, as well as making our lives more entertaining. Through science we have advanced medicine and surgery. Through science we can travel, communicate, explore, share ideas and thoughts. We use science and technology for everything, and it often turns out to be incredibly useful. How useful has religion been so far? Also, it's very well possible that there is a god. The problem is, of course, to know it when we see her. Do you? Does anyone? Not likely - because there is no definition, and where there is one, it's certainly not based on observations or logical conclusions. So, why not be content with what is? Isn't the universe marvellous as it is? Do we need to add something to spice it up? We are parts of a universe where 96% of the matter probably is a great mystery, and of the remaining 4% we barely know anything about. I think we have more wonders and beauty to discover before we grow so tired we actually have to make things up. Obviously, I'm not talking about not being creative anymore or not create art or literature anymore. I propose we see what is fiction and what probably isn't.
motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Author Report Posted January 26, 2005 thanks tormod, i agree that this is an interesting subject and i think relevant as well. specifically what i have a problem with is the insistance that religion serves no viable purpose for human kind and so should be eliminated. i am not a particularly religious person but i believe that an [non-political] religious alternative to atheism/agnosticism is essential to many people. one of the reasons is that to be comforted with thoughts of an afterlife is to be less likely to fall into despair for some people. not that religion is the opiate ofthe masses but then if it is maybe human beings en mass need an opiate to function. another more cynical reason would be to keep the 'sheep' in order the shepard may need to be beyond reproach, i.e. an all powerful god. there are other reasons of course but these came immediately to mind.
Fishteacher73 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 To paraphrase George Carlin: "Religion is like the little extra sole they nail to the bottom people's shoes with club feet. Its a fine thing. Helps them get along through daily life better. We should not howerver nail the soles to the feet of natives."
motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Author Report Posted January 26, 2005 Personally, I find pleasure from knowing instead of simply believing. I could of course decide to believe something that's simply not true, or at least completely unsupported, but I can assure you, I would feel horrible. I would actually know that I can't make things add up, I would know that I believe something that is not even close to be confirmed or at worst, something that's completely false. i think the i's in this statement say it all. you are not me and likewise what works for you and interests you will not necessarily work for me. can you honestly speak for what anyone else needs when it comes to comfort or peace of mind?
IrishEyes Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 you guys are going to be the reason that i flunk out of college!!Tormod, you need to put a limit on how many fresh new threads are allowed to be started in one afternoon... I need to study...!I'll be back on later to try to catch up with all of this...
motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Author Report Posted January 26, 2005 To paraphrase George Carlin: "Religion is like the little extra sole they nail to the bottom people's shoes with club feet. Its a fine thing. Helps them get along through daily life better. We should not howerver nail the soles to the feet of natives." likewise maybe we should not try to remove the soles that work.
Stargazer Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 i think the i's in this statement say it all. you are not me and likewise what works for you and interests you will not necessarily work for me. can you honestly speak for what anyone else needs when it comes to comfort or peace of mind? Many things are comforting, that doesn't mean they are good, or represent the truth. I could not ever imagine myself making something up and then decide to believe it simply to feel good. I would know I'm wrong, and that would not make me feel good, and I wonder how it can make anyone feel good. And would this mean, then, that people who happens to believe in something that goes against factual science would not have to be taught science in school? I mean, running the risk of being presented with facts that contradicts a certain belief?
sanctus Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 I could of course decide to believe something that's simply not true, or at least completely unsupported, but I can assure you, I would feel horrible.. Can you really decide to believe? There are religions I would like to believe in, Baha'i for example, and my life would be so much easier nothing to worry about....But I can't decide either you do or you don't (this may change in time, but not by my decision)
motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Author Report Posted January 26, 2005 And would this mean, then, that people who happens to believe in something that goes against factual science would not have to be taught science in school? I mean, running the risk of being presented with facts that contradicts a certain belief? good point., but i am not advocating sheilding people from the 'truth' of scientific fact. i am suggesting that fear of death is an unpleasant development of our big brains and that religious abuses should be railed against (socially speaking) but not religion itself. the kind of narrow minded anti-religious views of individuals like dawkins solve nothing and only serve to further distance people from the scientific community not to open their eyes so to speak.
Stargazer Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 Can you really decide to believe? There are religions I would like to believe in, Baha'i for example, and my life would be so much easier nothing to worry about....But I can't decide either you do or you don't (this may change in time, but not by my decision)Well, I suppose lots of people are raised into certain beliefs. It's interesting how most christians were raised to be christians, or muslims being raised to believe in islam etc., isn't it? What I meant about choice was that there has to be a reason to believe something, and if there is nothing to support it, then what ways into that belief are there other than either being raised into it or a conscious decision?
Stargazer Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 good point., but i am not advocating sheilding people from the 'truth' of scientific fact. i am suggesting that fear of death is an unpleasant development of our big brains and that religious abuses should be railed against (socially speaking) but not religion itself. the kind of narrow minded anti-religious views of individuals like dawkins solve nothing and only serve to further distance people from the scientific community not to open their eyes so to speak.Well, what reason do we have to believe that there is life after death? It can't be anything but wishful thinking or an active decision to "believe" in it. And to see religion as something that's not good is hardly narrowminded, and if it is, then I am narrowminded, then... at least in your view.
motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Author Report Posted January 26, 2005 sorry but if you can see nothing positive in religion than your thinking is quite narrow minded in my view. there is no evidence whatsoever that there is no life after cessation of the body or no god for that matter. but even if such evidence were to exist i personally know of more than one person who has been very helpful to others who would not be alive to do so if scriptural writings has been denied them. and if there is no life after death or god than being helpful to others and easing suffering seems to be the only 'good' thing in this world to me.
motherengine Posted January 26, 2005 Author Report Posted January 26, 2005 Well, I suppose lots of people are raised into certain beliefs. It's interesting how most christians were raised to be christians, or muslims being raised to believe in islam etc., isn't it? i am not trying to overpost here but i just had to point one thing out. lots of atheists are raised by atheist parents. does this mean that atheism is somehow 'wrong'? and by the way, atheism is a belief system. i just cannot figure out how anyone can think that they know a universal mind, or god does not exist. agnosticism is admiting one does not know which is just more humble a position. science is not about a set opinion, it is a malleable system to understand ourselves, the world around us and how things connect. what i think is funny is how science has been abused by arrogance just as religion has. says more about humans than the systems that they use.
Recommended Posts