The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[HydrogenBond]

The burden of proof for animals having religion is on the atheists. Where is the data that proves this. It is easy to make work for others.

 

One speculative thing that came to mind, were there two path for humans. One was a continuing extrapolation of animal evolution leading to the modern atheist. The other evolved the religion thing and split off. History could be the two branches of humans, who look the same, but are wired genetically to see things differently. Each would assume the other has to see it the same way, when there was always two distinctions. The religious branch tend to pick their origin as happening closer to formation of human cultures. The atheist trace their roots back much further to a continuity with a split from apes.

[alexander]

but there are plenty of people who continue exploring evolution and modern science who are religious, scientist and religion are not mutually exclusive things

 

[math]\text{scientists}\in\text{atheists}\vee\text{theists}[/math]

[LaurieAG]

Hi alexander,

 

Religions:

1) Assure Salvation

2) Have a precise Theology

3) Attempt to convert people who do not believe, actively or passively

 

you forgot 4) promise life after death

[Qfwfq]

Laurie that's comprised within salvation although doesn't quite imply it.

 

but there are plenty of people who continue exploring evolution and modern science who are religious, scientist and religion are not mutually exclusive things

:phones: Personally I know, have known and know about very many scientific folks who are/were religious. Plenty of them studying and graduating at my uni, including my same science faculty. Examples of notorious Deists were Einstein and Newton. whereas Galileo was a very devout Catholic and even held a clerical office for a while that hardly required him much time; the very Pope that ordered his trial was a member of the Lyncean Academy and had been a great friend of his, enthusiastic of his work, before one of the stubbornest peripatetics (who just happened to be an important cardinal) convinced him that his old pal had deceived him in getting clearance for publication.

 

A more complicated case is that of Darwin. Before having worked out his theory he was quite persuaded of Bishop William Paley's watch argument and explicitly supported ID. He changed his mind as he worked out his theory and argues against it in The Origin of Species but his own theory caused him quite some anxiety, anticipating that it might have ill effects on society. Apparently, it did lead him to become somewhat agnostic.

 

pretty sure they do, maybe not always in traditional ways to think about those points, but i'm pretty sure about this :rant: But if you have some examples, i'd love to reconsider :hihi:

The most blatant examples I know are Animism and Buddhism, belief in soul but not in any god(s), neither talks about salvation nor do they really proselytize AFAIK, at the most there may be a willingness to teach. These two examples definitely are a way of life and a world view or school of thought. I'm inclined to say they comply with none of those three conditions.

 

I don't know much about Taoism and Shintoism but I don't think they quite comply, I'll look them up when I can. I would scarcely say that Hinduism proselytizes, it enforced a stratified social order in the subcontinent but I'm not sure the lower castes were obliged to believe as much as to obey. It preaches reincarnation, Karma but not salvation. It is not even considered to have a well defined theology.

 

Judaism definitely has its theology but definitely doesn't proselytize and I don't think it even teaches about afterlife and salvation (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon's points 11 and 13 aren't necessarily such), it was Christ that introduced them as the concepts familiar to us; one great objection of the Rabbi toward him was his preaching that other peoples are equal to the Hebrews before God and accepting them as followers. Pure Judaism "does not exactly welcome" converts from outside of the tribes but may accept them. Zoroastrianism generally doesn't even accept them and definitely doesn't proselytize, but it does preach heaven and hell and some form of salvation, as well as there being a one and only almighty god: Ahura Mazda.

 

Islam definitely complies with your three conditions but you might be surprised if I say I'm under the impression that, aside from some misguided fundamentalists, it doen't require its followers to proselytize quite as strongly as some forms of Christianity do.

 

I agree, the point of this thread is to discuss something completely different, and yet it gets turned to that for some reason...

:hihi:

[alexander]

allright as my friend Dave says "Les do this" :ebomb:

 

Buddhism - is not a religion, it is a spiritual philosophy written by a spiritual philosopher (Gautama Buddha) around 563-483BC

 

it does however comply with the 3 rules

1) Salvation through learning the true nature of reality

2) A way to higher being is inside all of us, and a way to that being is though the balance of good and bad

3) They do actively recruit

 

Animism - i could just say that it's also a mix of Hylozoism (a philosophy) with a mix of various theologies and spirituality. But i will say more, Animism is not a single religion or a single movement, but as ideology its a subform of paganism, animism is a collection of subforms of paganism, subforms of a subform... Various forms have various ways of salvation, different theological systems but all believe in basically respecting "mother nature", and there are various schools, shamans, priests, etc, still roam the plains of mongolia and rural areas of china, thailand, russia, and even parts of the european continent, they do share their teachings and uphold their specific cultures.

 

 

so overruled so far :hyper:

 

Lets see Taoism is a set of philosophical and some religious traditions and concepts, basically its a philosophy, not a religion

 

Shinto is very much a religion and very much follows the rules of such

1) One could be added to the pantheon of kami (spirits) after one's death to look over their family for the rest of eternity, and if you know much about early Japan, this is very important, and all that lies through pleasing the spirits and conquering one's internal self (reason why Buddhism and Shinto have coincided philosophically so much so that today it's hard to identify the differences in philosophies)

2) Polytheism and animism, with strong spirituality, little emphasis on words, and large emphasis on ritual practices (physical practices) of the reiligion.

3) Magnificent shrines, events, often joined by the royal family to promote the religion, and the whole country ideology based on that... pretty active recruitment, i'd say...

[alexander]

Hi alexander,

you forgot 4) promise life after death

 

I did not, that is what salvation is all about, there are many forms of salvation, some do include life after death, some have recursive life, rebirth and all that

[Qfwfq]

Well, it seems that Shintoism complies well enough but I know that Taoism, Animism and Buddhism are considered religions. By the grounds on which you argue they aren't, you end up in circularity: Any religion is purple because something that isn't purple isn't a religion, by definition.

 

Buddhism:

it does however comply with the 3 rules

1) Salvation through learning the true nature of reality

2) A way to higher being is inside all of us, and a way to that being is though the balance of good and bad

3) They do actively recruit

Perhaps some variants do recruit in some places but certainly not the way it's a tenet of Christianity for instance. I'm not sure what you mean by "higher being" but I know Buddhism does not claim existence of any god(s) and even scorns such practices. It teaches reincarnation rather than salvation of the soul and enlightenment isn't what I'd call salvation. At that rate we might as well argue about whether the same goes for science, even; I don't see the point of it. We could of course discuss whether the same goes for Scientology.:hihi:

 

I certainly agree that Animism is not one single body. Heck, neither are Christianity and Islam, there are even variants of Judaism. I think Animism is a collective term for creeds in different continents, even having quite unrelated origins. Christianity is perhaps even more fractious by the time you go from the Orthodox and Catholic churches to the Witnesses, Mormons and whatnot. Animism is definitely a kind religious belief.

 

In any case, aside from what we mean by what words, the only common ground one can identify religions with is a belief in something spiritual and making it an important aspect of one's life.

[C1ay]

Most definitions of religion include some belief in a higher power or deity of some kind. In at least one legal case the U.S. Supreme Court even labeled Secular Humanism as a religion for purposes of protecting one's right to exercise their religion even though "secular" and "religious" are opposing concepts....

[Qfwfq]

The original definition has more to do with reverence: great and frequent (or constant) care and attention devoted to something held as sacred or worthy of veneration. This may include something higher, a divinity, a cause, it can even be family or nation. This is how most etymologists interpret the Latin religione as supposedly from a verb relìgere; some of them instead link it to re-ligàre: tie together, form a community of people by sharing a cult and rule; from which people are said to "enter in religion" if they join a monastic order.

[alexander]

hey guys lets meet in "What is religion?" thread to discuss this :hihi:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/20979-what-is-religion.html#post280325