One thing I find puzzling is the whole science versus religion debate.
Most scientists and skeptics will maintain that whereas religion is a belief system, science is not. It is a means of exploring the world reliant on empirical evidence, open to question as opposed to steeped in dogma.
Some prominent skeptics view religion as a blight on reasoned thinking but as it has been established, scientists can be religious too and this is not a problem if such beliefs stay separate from the methods they use.
See: http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
Unless religion tries to call upon science for self justification (bang goes the faith aspect) then I have no problem. In essence they deal with separate issues.
Don't get me wrong I can understand that some types of religious groups do make decisions that can be potentially life threatening (Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology) and I agree that such applications of doctrine can be justifiably opposed on grounds of science and reason. Other examples are so called spiritualist mediums and faith healers (People who make disprovable claims)
But otherwise is the whole thing a tad overplayed?
I can't speak for others of a skeptical disposition, and I certainly can't speak for scientists. But I see a difficulty with the notion that science and religion deal with separate issues: that of identifying the issues with which religion peculiarly deals. What is religious belief belief about? It can't stray into science. It has been chased out of history ( who believes in, for example, the Resurrection as historical fact?) It cannot provide a logical foundation for morality ( see the Euthyphro Question, for example), and some at least of religious morality is just plain wrong. As for theology, it's an Aladdin's Cave of fallacies. Perhaps there is some subject-matter that religion can call its own, but it's hard to find.Originally Posted by median
It is possible to take an entirely noncognitivist view of religious utterance. On some such views religious beliefs are not, in the ordinary sense, beliefs at all, but rather ritual utterances and actions, fostering a sense of community. A bit like shared catchphrases and in-jokes among friends. But that sort of view, although attractive to some religious people, is vehemently rejected by many others- although they can't quite manage to overcome the difficulty I mentioned above.
It can't be about nothing ( they say). But it seems not to be about anything either!
Is religion all that bad?
My post will not attempt an answer. At least 200 non-muslims were killed today in Iraq. The media suggest it was done by Islamic militants, but who really knows. Is religion all that bad?
I despair. This is not down to the American or British forces. Iraq seems to be imploding.
The media SUGGESTS Islamic militants? Who was it done by then? Militant atheists?
The people targetted were Yazidis, they were targetted because they are a minority religion by extremists fighting in the name of another religion (Is it possible to get deja vu for the last 2000 years?).
PS Is religion all that bad? Yes.
Last edited by dllr; 16th August 2007 at 09:18 AM. Reason: Afterthought
This is a difficult question to answer - mostly because the adherents of [insert religion here] will claim that they do a lot of good (charity, welfare work, volunteering, etc)
However, to borrow a question: name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person. That should give you some idea of how irrelevant the claims of motivation to do good are anyway.
But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history.
As for the OP, I think it depends what you actually mean by "religion". Most people actually seem to be more deist than theist, even if they don't realise it. I think it is a completely pointless belief because it is basically just a god of the gaps, but because of this I don't think there is really any conflict with science in this case, because there aren't any claims made. However, actual organised religion where material claims are made is very different. Claims can be tested. Can water be turned into wine? Can statues bleed? Can people walk on water? All these questions can be answered by science, so when religion claims to have a different answer there is a definite conlict between the two.
The argument that famous scientists have been religious doesn't really hold up here. Firstly, belief in one area doesn't preclude science in another. There is no reason a creationist couldn't be a perfectly good physicist, for example. Secondly, until recently it was essentially impossible to publically admit to being atheist, so anyone from more than a couple of centuries ago will appear to be religious no matter what they actually believed, there was simply no choice in the matter. For example, Galileo was a Catholic because otherwise he'd have been burned at the stake, his actual beliefs were irrelevant. Finally, some people seem to have very different ideas of what is religious. For example, from that list of scientists, Einstein is claimed to be Jewish. Culturally he was, but he was very much an atheist in his beliefs.
But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history.
Well if it was a tribal attack then it would've been an attack on Kurds (because that's what the Yazidis are) and looking at all the news reports coming out of the Middle East this distinction is not being made and in fact the threat by Islamic extremists seems to be the main focus. The reason for the attack seems to be the Yazidis religion which is an odd blending of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Islamic State in Iraq, an al-Qaeda front group, distributed leaflets a week ago warning that an attack was imminent because Yazidis were "anti-Islamic".
So....
1. al-Qaeda are Islamic extremists
2. They threaten another religious group
3. They attack the aforementioned group
.....if that isn't a religious inspired attack, I don't know what is.
"But otherwise is the whole thing a tad overplayed?" - median
In my opinion, yes. I believe religion is a personal life choice. I don't understand the need to go shouting about one's religion from the rooftops.
"However, to borrow a question: name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person. That should give you some idea of how irrelevant the claims of motivation to do good are anyway." - vbloke
That helps me to put all the religious waffle into perspective. To be honest I have an issue with in-your-face-do-gooders, can't help wondering what they feel they have to prove. So much can be done quietly in the background.
"But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history." - Cuddles
I don't think it's all down to tribal warfare. I don't know about Islam. I can't get my head around people killing each other in the name of religion full stop.
I cant help feeling that all religion is being as bad based on the actions of one group in one area (or indeed, a few groups in a few areas). The majority of religious people I know are actually peace loving decent people and this argument just doesnt hold water.
I probably speak from a different perspective here, but why is it that these debates focus on Christianity and the Bible. (and recently, Islam and terrorists). Surely, any principle needs to have universal application across the board, i.e., be applicable to all religions without exception.
But is that (as I intimated from my post ^^ up there) because of their religion, or in spite of it?
I'd vote for 'inspite of it'......
Re: Is religion all that bad?
>>name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person<<
Praying, and really, really *meaning* it.
I wasn't using it as a justification to tar all religious people with the same brush. I was merely pointing out that the recent attack in Iraq was very much a religious inspired act of terrorism and not as some people have suggested a tribal one.
Thanks for that clarification.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks