Religious tolerance

[DeLamar.J]

Good article about the cons of religious tolerance. I happen to agree, do you?

SAM HARRIS
Neuroscience Graduate Student, UCLA; Author, The End of Faith

Science Must Destroy Religion
Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one
of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine
authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live.
Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these
irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of
human conflict.

 

[heretic888]

Good article about the cons of religious tolerance. I happen to agree, do you?

No. I thought it was a pretty shallow analysis myself.

These "religions wins" versus "science wins" arguments never do justice to the debate because they are, by necessity, exclusivistic and one-sided. Nor do they handle all of the available data. Parsimony isn't the way to go when you can't explain what's right in front of you.

I would recommend Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion if you want to hear what a real philosopher (and not a neuroscience grad student masquerading as a philosopher) has to say about the subject.

By the way, someone should really inform the author that history is one of the social sciences. . .

Laterz.

 

[Monadnock]

Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Sounds like a bigot, but I don't expect much from "Graduate Students" today.

 

[monkey]

Religon is supose to be based on acounts of stories that have occured.Science is supose to be based on theories or evidence or exsploring threw esperimentation.Now here in lay the art of the 2!First Ill do Religon ,how do we know with out a shadow of doubt that those stories are 100%. AreThese stories are translated exactly as per told!No dilutions-no words or meaning lost translating the original languege to english.& the biggiest I can see is if it did occur,Was it realy like that or just Blown out of contex to hype a buisness for the religon/political ways.Now science-How do we know the carin date is 100% & not been tained.How do we know the reserch is actualy from a noted Scientist or is it someone who got a degree or notabilty from (money-fame-politics)What possable data is 100% & what was 45% made to look 100%. I think if we look at the religon or science.We see only what we want to see at that time & beleave what is presented for lack of better or more viable ways to grant accurate data.Like I was told in History class (Is His Story)not so much as actual but an account that may hace transpired that way,Example.History states the pilgrams discoverd plimoth rock.Plymoth rock is tiny & suposably 50mile north of actual landing,Pilgrams were not the first,There is evedance that other poeple visited the Indians befor the pilgrams.Now How much of this is actual & or tainted?

 

[heretic888]

Sounds like a bigot, but I don't expect much from "Graduate Students" today.

Hrm, I wonder if I should take offense at that. . .

 

[heretic888]

Religon is supose to be based on acounts of stories that have occured.Science is supose to be based on theories or evidence or exsploring threw esperimentation.Now here in lay the art of the 2!First Ill do Religon ,how do we know with out a shadow of doubt that those stories are 100%. AreThese stories are translated exactly as per told!No dilutions-no words or meaning lost translating the original languege to english.& the biggiest I can see is if it did occur,Was it realy like that or just Blown out of contex to hype a buisness for the religon/political ways.Now science-How do we know the carin date is 100% & not been tained.How do we know the reserch is actualy from a noted Scientist or is it someone who got a degree or notabilty from (money-fame-politics)What possable data is 100% & what was 45% made to look 100%.

With all due respect, monkey, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Laterz.

 

[Ceicei]

Monkey makes sense to me. What he is saying is that there are no absolutes. There aren't absolutes with religion and neither with science. Religious views/interpretations change because of the information present/withheld. Science changes also, when discoveries are made that add on to the previous theories and ideas. One view shouldn't trump the other, simply because neither gives the whole answer.

I realize many people may not understand how Monkey (Tom) thinks when he makes his posts, but if people will take the time to pause while reading, then the major points of his posts can be found.

- Ceicei

 

[Xue Sheng]

We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

It does not sound to me so much that he is proposing "Science Must Destroy Religion" as much as he is saying sience shuold replace religion, thereby becoming the new religion.

 

[crushing]

It does not sound to me so much that he is proposing "Science Must Destroy Religion" as much as he is saying sience shuold replace religion, thereby becoming the new religion.

I know I put a lot of faith in science.

 

[matt.m]

I agree with Ceicei. There is no absolute in religion or science when it comes to a lot of things. It seems to me that a lot of people interpret things different. Just look at the different responses in this particular topic already.

However, I believe that religious tolerance follow under the guidelines of color. I.E. being color blind. Everyone should be color blind in the aspect that all people should be judged on merit and personality.

 

[pstarr]

As of late, science has been validating religion...

But that aside, we should be careful not to make science our religion...

 

[Jenna]

I agree with the abstract of the piece but I thought it descended into a sort of biased nonsense however I will say I agree with religious tolerance per se but not to the extent that it puts the case for some half assed scientific attempt at debunking religion and the religious books as nonsense.

Science will NEVER disprove religious concepts simply because they are beyond its capability and should be beyond its remit also and TRUE science would acknowledge this inability to disprove or "destroy" religion but what we see here is not the true science of altruistic discovery but rather the narrow minded and petty science that is riddled with PERSONAL politics and there are many .. as is obvious even on this site whose desire is not to make honest scientific discovery but instead to use scientific theories as veiled derision for a FACT which they cannot disprove and a belief which they do not hold

I think in many ways science seeks to destroy religion so it can wear the mantle of the new god hmmm.

Science can make a chip here and a crack there but not enough to bring down an ancient fortress and the sooner science relinquishes its claim as the ONLY truth and stops seeking to destroy that which it cannot adequately quantify or qualify and instead concentrates on creating on curing and helping us to understand what is in the realms of our understanding then the better for us all

I think in a case like this science is a mockery and a parody of itself while people die of cancers and stroke and are incapacitated through mental illness and others lacking food and while our consumption of resources outstrips our natural ability to replenish them what is science doing to assist where it is within its power to do so? nothing as science in certain quarters has a preoccupation with some ultimate final triiumph of disproving religious writings and the efficacy of faith on the individual and on the population. Wonderful. Bravo science

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[heretic888]

The problem with the author is that he holds rather impoverished views of science and religion. What he describes are essentially caricatures of both approaches that muddle their actual essence.

I should also point out that, from where I'm standing, the majority of the contributors to this thread hold similarly impoverished views. . .

What is generally talked about in these debates to have "science" and "religion" get along are very narrow, one-dimensional definitions of "science" and "religion". In these contexts, "science" almost always operationally refers to positivism or some of the natural sciences, while "religion" almost always operationally refers to the mythological beliefs of Protestant fundamentalism.

What you get is pseudoscientific oddities like "Intelligent Design", which attempts to use the methods of positivism to prove the mythology of Genesis. This is hardly a generous union of science and religion.

This is all way off the mark, in my opinion.

Laterz.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, all I can say is

I hate religion, but I love faith.

What's the difference? One is your true beliefs (or lack thereof, you can have absolute faith there is no god I suppose) the other is a Dog and Pony show based around peoples faiths.
​

 

[heretic888]

Well, all I can say is

I hate religion, but I love faith.

What's the difference? One is your true beliefs (or lack thereof, you can have absolute faith there is no god I suppose) the other is a Dog and Pony show based around peoples faiths.

​

I have to say, Technopunk, that I always find statements like this interesting. . .

I mean, if it wasn't for religious indoctrination you never would have such "faith" in the first place --- except perhaps in vague, non-descript abstractions and intuitions.

Laterz.

 

[Cryozombie]

I have to say, Technopunk, that I always find statements like this interesting. . .

I mean, if it wasn't for religious indoctrination you never would have such "faith" in the first place --- except perhaps in vague, non-descript abstractions and intuitions.

Laterz.

Yeah prolly... But I still think you can believe in the being without the dog and pony show...

I mean, you can believe in Aliens without drinking the koolaid and packing your shoes with quarters right?

Hehe.

 

[heretic888]

I realize many people may not understand how Monkey (Tom) thinks when he makes his posts, but if people will take the time to pause while reading, then the major points of his posts can be found.

The main issue I had with Monkey's post was the "how do we know?" nonsense. . .

We know through proper methodology and data resulting from that methodology. Whether we're talking about religious scholarship (which could be considered a social science in some regards) or one of the "hard" sciences (i.e., natural sciences), there is a strong emphasis on methodology and data (although, admittedly less so in some fields).

Most of the speculation in Monkey's post is from the viewpoint of an uninformed layman who doesn't really understand how the scientific process "works". Most of what he's talking about is well understood in scientific circles that you don't have to actually point it out (it's common knowledge).

It reminds me of somebody on here once commenting how certain statistics were limited in that certain samples could skew a mean --- which, um, is something you learn on your first day of a Stat 101 class. Likewise, the above comments like "how do you know they have a real degree?" sounds ridiculous to any informed science student, who is well aware of the professional standards and documentary requirements of peer-reviewed journals.

Like I said, and I don't mean to be rude here, but people really have no clue what they're talking about.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

It does not sound to me so much that he is proposing "Science Must Destroy Religion" as much as he is saying sience shuold replace religion, thereby becoming the new religion.

Which, honestly, should scare the bejeezus out of any self-respecting scientist. . .

 

[heretic888]

As of late, science has been validating religion...

As this most likely refers to validating certain mythological beliefs of the Judeo-Christian variety, I would be curious as to the "science" that actually backs this up.

But that aside, we should be careful not to make science our religion...

For some people, it already is. Scientism, anyone??

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

IScience can make a chip here and a crack there but not enough to bring down an ancient fortress and the sooner science relinquishes its claim as the ONLY truth and stops seeking to destroy that which it cannot adequately quantify or qualify and instead concentrates on creating on curing and helping us to understand what is in the realms of our understanding then the better for us all

I think I need to comment here.

Okay, I'm gonna come right out and say this: science is the only way to "truth". . .

Now, that probably raised a few eyebrows, no doubt, so allow me to qualify my above statement. By "science", I don't actually mean positivism or any of the "hard" sciences in particular or materialism or some such nonsense. By "science", I mean the scientific method, which is a very broad principle of data accumulation and validation. It consists of three general strands:

1) Methodology or practice.

2) Data or information.

3) Communal confirmation or rejection.

If you don't fulfill these three strands, then not only is what you're doing not "science" but it's not even reliable information. If you don't have a methodology for "testing" your truth-claim and it isn't privy to communal/peer review, then we are in the realm of unfalsifiable dogmatic assertions. It may be true, of course, but nobody has any way of knowing so it might as well not be true, for all intents and purposes.

By the way, the world's religions have been using science for millenia. You might want to read up on some of the contemplative practices in the various faiths. They got the whole shebang --- methodology, data, peer review, cumulative improvement of understanding, and so on.

Science isn't just something you do in "the lab". It's a fundamental principle of discovering truth for the human mind. In fact, Piagetian research seems to indicate that humans are wired for "science".

Laterz.