Are you religious?

[Ed Oscuro]

The gulf between religion and science is often exaggerated. The Roman Catholic Church - whether or not you agree with any of their given stances - take the stance that science and religion cannot be in conflict. And, in the modern Church, this is not in the "if we shut our eyes to evidence it will go away" fashion, though it is true that some persons have come up with terrible arguments to try to argue away scientific evidence when it was embarrassing to them. The Catholics understand today that this is not reputable or necessary. Unless there comes a time when we could disprove God (and nobody* sees that coming), there isn't an obvious way this could end up embarrassing Catholicism. Even in the time of Galileo, which was after the Council of Trent started clamping down on scientific freedoms, it was widely admitted that if scientific evidence showed that the Earth orbited the Sun that they would have to consider it faithfully.

Johannes Kepler, despite being a Protestant, was in some ways more obviously faithful than Galileo to religion (though Galileo makes arguments similar, if less memorable, to the following two passages). However, he did not shy away from gentle disagreement with those who he thought used the wrong sort of evidence or argument in scientific matters. He wrote a response to the use of Ecclesiastes 1:4 as evidence for a non-moving earth: '"A generation passes away, and a generation comes, but the earth stands forever." Does it seem here as if Solomon wanted to argue with the astronomers? No, rather, he wanted to warn people of their own mutability, while the earth, home of the human race, remains always the same [...] You do not hear any physical dogma here. The message is a moral one, concerning something self-evident and seen by all eyes but seldom pondered. Solomon therefore urges us to ponder. Who is unaware that the earth is always the same? Who does not see the sun return daily [...] So Solomon, by mentioning what is evident to all, warns of that which almost everyone wrongly neglects...." (Selections from Kepler's Astronomia Nova, translated by William H. Donahue, qtd. in Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology.)

Kepler also has a highly useful couple of short passages immediately following this one. First, there is Advice to Astronomers. Then there is Advice for idiots:

"But whoever is too stupid to understand astronomical science, or too weak to believe Copernicus without affecting his faith, I would advise him that, having dismissed astronomical studies and having damned whatever philosophical [i.e., scientific] opinions he pleases, he mind his own business and betake himself home to scratch in his own dirt patch, abandoning this wandering about the world. He should raise his eyes (his only means of vision) to this visible heaven and with his whole heart burst forth in giving thanks and praising God the Creator. He can be sure that he worships God no less than the astronomer, to whom God has granted the more penetrating vision of the mind's eye, and an ability and desire to celebrate his God above those things he has discovered." (ibidem)

* Yes, there is one person who will say "I can conceive it, therefore it must be true!" Yes, that person may consider himself recognized and may sit down now

[Jonathan Ingram]

I'm fine with the idea of religion as a useful fiction-- religion helps individuals deal with life, which is hard even for the most privileged, and can help maintain social stability, etc.

My main concern are cases where religion is used as a tool to control others

You`ve just made two statements that contradict each other. Because being "a tool to control others" is exactly how religion helps to maintain social stability. And I don`t quite see what exactly is so good about helping to maintain social stability in a class society. It just means that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. This pacifying role of religion is the main reason why the clergy are always among the first to line up in mass graves when social revolutions occur and rightfully so.

[BrianC]

I agree with the notion of exercising due diligence when it comes to protecting our loved ones from tyrants (including God). However, even Jesus Christ said in the Book of Matthew that those who love their family members more than God shall be denied entry into heaven.

There are many passages in the bible that prove God isn't a tyrant. I feel you are doing the same thing you are accusing us of doing, hearing only what you want to hear. The bible says multiple times that God should be put first, but it also says to honor your mother and father. There are many verses that show kindness through peaceful means, which is exactly why I feel telling slaves to respect their slavers isn't promoting slavery, but telling people to act in a respectful way. The bible also says to love thy enemy and those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Evolution is a huge debate, but the evidence thing is what bothers me. I try to look it up, and find the same things I know, that I feel don't prove anything against God. Whenever I see someone on a forum try to ask what the proof is, I see replies telling people it's obvious what the proof is without any actual proof. I believe in some aspects of evolution like adaption to different environments, but I feel this is more proof of God than proof against him. I mean, it's amazing how many creatures have specific thing to adapt to their environment and I highly doubt it just happened by chance.

[louisg]

My main concern are cases where religion is used as a tool to control others-- especially women. That's a very real and serious problem. I don't want to name names, but I think we all know what region of the world I have in mind when I mention liberties of women in particular.

The one that says this?

..But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

EDIT: Just to add something thoughtful to this: I think there's a big disconnect between old time religion and religions like Christianity which are a little more hippyish and a less "KILL THE UNBELIEVERS!". This is why I say that literal vs. figurative interpretations are the difference between, in my opinion, a religion encouraging people to commit evil acts in the name of a fan club and a religion inspiring people to do good in the world. It is not a problem with a one specific religion-- as I pointed out, the old testament is very brutal-- it is a problem with interpretations of a book and the norms within a given culture or subculture.

The above quote is from Deuteronomy.

[t0yrobo]

The gulf between religion and science is often exaggerated. The Roman Catholic Church - whether or not you agree with any of their given stances - take the stance that science and religion cannot be in conflict. And, in the modern Church, this is not in the "if we shut our eyes to evidence it will go away" fashion, though it is true that some persons have come up with terrible arguments to try to argue away scientific evidence when it was embarrassing to them. The Catholics understand today that this is not reputable or necessary. Unless there comes a time when we could disprove God (and nobody* sees that coming), there isn't an obvious way this could end up embarrassing Catholicism. Even in the time of Galileo, which was after the Council of Trent started clamping down on scientific freedoms, it was widely admitted that if scientific evidence showed that the Earth orbited the Sun that they would have to consider it faithfully.

While I'm not religious in any way I am rather fond of the way Catholics go about things (for the most part). In my experience of growing up going to church and many years in Catholic schools the focus was always much more on social issues, solid education etc. than on strict religious doctrine. Of course there are extremists everywhere and my experience with people that took the religion super seriously wasn't always the best. Overall my experience with Catholics has been really positive, I'm actually a little bothered that Rick Santorum is out making all Catholics seem like such nutcases right now because that really isn't representative of the majority.
I like these clips for Religulous because they always seem to take people back a bit, but it's exactly how my time around Catholic priests has always been, a few decent jokes and an incredibly reasonable outlook on the world and religions place in it.
http://youtu.be/ExElEMpJN3M
http://youtu.be/ReV0nCuObcs

[antron]

The gulf between religion and science is often exaggerated.

so true. A perfect example is the use of the word "random" when used to describe the mutations that enable evolution. The word only makes sense when describing a large set of events, and our ability to find patterns or corrolate them to some externel infulence. We are unable to find anything of the such, so we say they are random. This says nothing about the individual mutations themselves. They could quite possibly be caused by some supernatural influence. It's just not for the scientist to speculate about becuase it is not repeatable.

But some religious do not understand this use of the word, and think it means that no one can be in control. I hope this is just an education issue, and not the result of athiest scientists deliberatly missleading the public in an attempt to sway them religiously.

[DragonInstall]

I don't know what I would call myself. I do believe in a higher existence and believe in evolution, and I don't think the universe just happened with a bang either. When I think about it, there really is no way to prove which is correct or not.

Though in my lifetime, I've found religious people to be more friendly and happy over atheist. So I don't think religion is all that bad. It's just the few that do bad things in the name of religion that makes others look bad. *shrug*

[greg]

How simple, can I ask you to solve the mysteries of the universe and existence next please.

That's easy. The answer is 42.

How's it douchy to debate religion? I believe that debate is healthy.

Debate is one thing, but I did not see anyone genuinely interested in having BrianC explain his beliefs fairly. He was forced into a defensive position after having his beliefs mocked and ridiculed because the bible says that slaves should be -gasp- treated fairly. Let's set aside the fact that the concept of slavery is not always that of bullwhip lashings and shackles like we have thanks to the American South. I would imagine that passage of scripture being that offensive it it had claimed the exact opposite, that slaves should not be treated with dignity and should be treated harshly. But because it was written that slaves should be treated fairly, I saw people on here pinning BrianC to the wall, making the logical fallacy of assuming that this entails a full endorsement of slavery.

Christ held up a Roman coin and said, "render unto Caesar what is his"---a coin with the engraved image of the emperor of Rome, who was exalted as a deity himself and therefore the very existence of the coin was considered blasphemous and sacrilegious to the Jewish people. Does that mean that Christ personally endorsed the Roman Empire, which made entertainment out of having people torn apart by ravenous lions and such? Of course not.

We may have patterned our governments after the representative republic of Rome, but we certainly did not learn the worth of the individual from them. You guys may not be willing to admit it, but so much of our sense of free will, liberty, justice for the downtrodden, the worth of the individual, inalienable human rights, compassion for those in need, breaking the barriers of racism, etc. ---so much of those concepts comes from Christian philosophy. The Romans did not value the sanctity of human life. They tied people to crosses and lit them afire to illuminate the Colosseum in the evening so that spectators could watch gladiators butcher each other to death for sport. Christian religious philosophy was unlike anything else from its time. I cannot think of any other religion that places such importance on a personal relationship with a higher power, as that of a parent and child. And from that, a sense of individual worth to be honored and respected by others.

But many of you were just so offended with the concept that Paul had written that slaves--- in other words, domestic servants with restricted citizenship--- be treated fairly and justly. Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement because of their belief in God and biblical scriptures, not despite.

Holding people's feet to the fire is not a healthy debate. BrianC was being treated discourteously because of his professed faith. That's pretty douchy, in my opinion. I personally find Mormonism and Scientology absurd, but my sensibility (in other words, tact) would normally discourage me form starting up a topic just to vent. When I feel like arguing with a Mormon, I'd do so on a more appropriate channel, not on a video game forum of all places.

[antron]

I see it this way:

People bash the Old Testament (because it deserves it)
Christian says New Testament overrides Old (because it does)
I point out something in New Testament that a moral person cannot believe (slave don't have to obey their earthly masters, they should run away)
Christian is stumped, and maybe starts to accept that not everything in the New Testament is true.

Maybe I am actually trying to help him. Maybe I believes he is better off in life not believing such things, just like he believes I am better off in death (and life) if I do. It's a discussion.

He was forced into a defensive position after having his beliefs mocked and ridiculed because the bible says that slaves should be -gasp- treated fairly.

no, ne was forced into a defensive position becuase he knows good and well that slaves don't have to obey their earthly masters.

[Ed Oscuro]

A perfect example is the use of the word "random" when used to describe the mutations that enable evolution.

I think a better example, because mentioning evolution and religion together always complicates things, is quantum mechanics (QM) and religion.

Under the classic 20th century interpretation of QM, the world is essentially probabilistic, but if there is a "reason" for it being so we wouldn't find it and we shouldn't worry about what is unknowable. This last bit concerns me.

Now, neither QM nor big bang cosmology are areas reserved for the religious, but it does seem that science may be limited from making any relevant observations. However, many scientists are wondering if it is possible to learn anything new in these areas - and I think that understanding how difficult it may be, while at the same time recognizing that it would be useful to understand the reasons for things and not just predict them, is a goal for any good scientist. However, for the practice of science the distinction between religion as not being empirically based (at least not in a way we recognize) and science as being empirically based would seem to hold. But that is not the ideal for either side.

[louisg]

Debate is one thing, but I did not see anyone genuinely interested in having BrianC explain his beliefs fairly. He was forced into a defensive position after having his beliefs mocked and ridiculed because the bible says that slaves should be -gasp- treated fairly.

Yeah, you can't really take BrianC to task for that; that was a little unfair. I don't *think* that was the purpose of the topic, unless I'm missing something and it was spun off a different thread.

Let's set aside the fact that the concept of slavery is not always that of bullwhip lashings and shackles like we have thanks to the American South. I would imagine that passage of scripture being that offensive it it had claimed the exact opposite, that slaves should not be treated with dignity and should be treated harshly.

Well, no, it is. Slavery or indentured servitude is a terrible thing. But it sounds like the point that the NT was trying to make is that, given that slavery was a fact of life in those days, you should at least not torture your slaves. It's important to remember that even though the bible has many timeless qualities that it is still rooted in the period it was transcribed in.

You make a good point about the abolitionists.

You guys may not be willing to admit it, but so much of our sense of free will, liberty, justice for the downtrodden, the worth of the individual, inalienable human rights, compassion for those in need, breaking the barriers of racism, etc. ---so much of those concepts comes from Christian philosophy. The Romans did not value the sanctity of human life. They tied people to crosses and lit them afire to illuminate the Colosseum in the evening so that spectators could watch gladiators butcher each other to death for sport. Christian religious philosophy was unlike anything else from its time. I cannot think of any other religion that places such importance on a personal relationship with a higher power, as that of a parent and child. And from that, a sense of individual worth to be honored and respected by others.

I don't think the dichotomy of either being a Roman who's torturing people to death or a Christian who's not is quite accurate though. Jesus was a Jewish philosopher, and his religion must've been a pretty big influence on him. Some people also think that he might have picked up some Buddhist philosophy on his travels. I think that's a bit of tunnel vision to assume that these values are something unique to Christianity.

[BrianC]

no, ne was forced into a defensive position becuase he knows good and well that slaves don't have to obey their earthly masters.

Please don't speak for me. I know full well what you were getting at, but choosing to run away isn't always a peaceful way out, nor does it solve the issue. There's a reason why it says slaves should obey their masters.

[antron]

no, ne was forced into a defensive position becuase he knows good and well that slaves don't have to obey their earthly masters.

Please don't speak for me. I know full well what you were getting at, but choosing to run away isn't always a peaceful way out, nor does it solve the issue. There's a reason why it says slaves should obey their masters.

and that is?

[BrianC]

no, ne was forced into a defensive position becuase he knows good and well that slaves don't have to obey their earthly masters.

Please don't speak for me. I know full well what you were getting at, but choosing to run away isn't always a peaceful way out, nor does it solve the issue. There's a reason why it says slaves should obey their masters.

and that is?

I gave you the answer multiple times, and you still ask? In some of my previous posts, I thought I made it clear that it was showing love and respect towards their masters, and then you rudely tell me my answer isn't good enough by asking the same question.

[antron]

why does one need to show respect to someone who claims to own them? such a claim is immoral.

[BrianC]

whay does one need to show respect to someone who claims to own them?

Becuase we are supposed to love unconditionally, as it says multiple times in the bible. I also don't feel the OT contradicts the NT. Many of the same values are there, but things were different becuase death was punishment for sin and trusting in good and sacrificing animals to God was the only salvation.

[antron]

obeying and loving are two different things

Gandhi and MLK loved the policemen that hit them with sticks, but did not obey them

[BrianC]

It's not telling people to sin when their master tells them to sin. Obeying and loving are different things, but it still says to love your masters. Here's a verse that explains why slaves should obey their masters. 1 Peter 2:19 NIV: "For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God."

[antron]

Here's a verse that explains why slaves should obey their masters. 1 Peter 2:19 NIV: "For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God."

great quote, I'm sure civil rights activists were thinking that as they were being beaten, for not obeying. and were it not for people like them, we would still be living like it was 0 BC.

It's not telling people to sin when their master tells them to sin.

I know, they could just be telling you to fetch water. My point is you don't have do it if you don't want to. In 2012 or 0012

[ebarrett]

To settle this discussion, I suggest a spitting duel until one of the participants drowns.

[louisg]

Here's a verse that explains why slaves should obey their masters. 1 Peter 2:19 NIV: "For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God."

great quote, I'm sure civil rights activists were thinking that as they were being beaten, for not obeying. and were it not for people like them, we would still be living like it was 0 BC.

That's contradictory though if you take into account that a lot of civil rights activists *were* religious. For example, and this is why I talk about interpretation, it looks like it can be interpreted very differently:

http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-19.htm

"For God is pleased with you when you do what you know is right and patiently endure unfair treatment."

The follow-up is this:

" For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God"

*when you do good and suffer for it*. Now, I guess it's debatable whether in this case 'good' is 'being a slave'. Or, is it referring to standing up for something and being punished for it? It goes on to show a parallel with the life of Jesus Christ, who did suffer for doing the right thing:

"When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly"

Of course, that's in line with the whole 'turn the other cheek' passive resistance thing. The passage really might just boil down to "bide your time". Anyway, I don't know the NT very well; I'm just Googling around for explanations.

[antron]

That's contradictory though if you take into account that a lot of civil rights activists *were* religious.

right. but they had enough sense to disregard the command from the NT that they should obey their masters. they obviously did not take it to all be true, or they would have stayed in their former places. that is healthy religion, in my opinion.

[Moniker]

That's contradictory though if you take into account that a lot of civil rights activists *were* religious.

right. but they had enough sense to disregard the command from the NT that they should obey their masters. they obviously did not take it to all be true, or they would have stayed in their former places. that is healthy religion, in my opinion.

Dude, you're beating a dead horse. Give it a rest. Everyone else has made peace with the passage in their own way.

[antron]

Everyone else has made peace with the passage in their own way.

it isn't directed at "everyone" (whom you apparently speak for). it's only directed at someone who might feel that everything in the NT is to be followed. but anyway...

[Leandro]

Option 2, 12%, 9 votes

[louisg]

That's contradictory though if you take into account that a lot of civil rights activists *were* religious.

right. but they had enough sense to disregard the command from the NT that they should obey their masters. they obviously did not take it to all be true, or they would have stayed in their former places. that is healthy religion, in my opinion.

It's not necessarily disregarded: is there a reason why my interpretation is necessarily incorrect for example? I *do* agree that there's a real 'pie in the sky' aspect to it all, but I don't think that *has* to be the case.

Man, a Jewish/Atheist guy defending the New Testament. Really? This is what the thread's come to?

[greg]

That's contradictory though if you take into account that a lot of civil rights activists *were* religious.

Right. but they had enough sense to disregard the command from the NT that they should obey their masters. they obviously did not take it to all be true, or they would have stayed in their former places. that is healthy religion, in my opinion.

This is getting real old. MLK and others did obey laws, for the most part. They were not involving themselves with criminal activities, such as overturning cop cars, rioting, stealing, etc. That's why it is so sad that those who think they revere MLK so much are the ones responsible for the Los Angeles riots and such. We get that sort of activity now when somebody's sports team wins the championship now. But, I digress.

Man, a Jewish/Atheist guy defending the New Testament. Really? This is what the thread's come to?

Well, you're actually a decent person to talk to. Understanding where the other party is coming from is a major requirement to having an open, honest discussion or debate about something. You're not the type who'd just spew venom because some street preacher told you you're going to hell, and feel justified by being equally as obnoxious and intolerant online instead. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[antron]

Louis, I think the best you can do in that regard is just to say that your neighbor is your master, and hope that you will be his as well, and we are all slaves to the world. But it doesn't say that. It clearly maintains a class line, and gives instructions on how it should be maintained.

So does the Bhagavad Gita, in a story where Krishna advises a soldier to follow out his order to kill his family. Your class came first India for along time, and still does. We are not done eradicating this mentality yet. Defenders of this in the NT do not help.

[louisg]

Louis, I think the best you can do in that regard is just to say that your neighbor is your master, and hope that you will be his as well, and we are all slaves to the world. But it doesn't say that. It clearly maintains a class line, and gives instructions on how it should be maintained.

What about the idea that as society evolves and changes, so does our interpretation of the bible? I tend towards thinking that your interpretation was the original intent, but what specifically is laying out a class line (as opposed to what I had posted, which was an alternate reading)..?

That's contradictory though if you take into account that a lot of civil rights activists *were* religious.

Right. but they had enough sense to disregard the command from the NT that they should obey their masters. they obviously did not take it to all be true, or they would have stayed in their former places. that is healthy religion, in my opinion.

This is getting real old. MLK and others did obey laws, for the most part. They were not involving themselves with criminal activities, such as overturning cop cars, rioting, stealing, etc. That's why it is so sad that those who think they revere MLK so much are the ones responsible for the Los Angeles riots and such. We get that sort of activity now when somebody's sports team wins the championship now. But, I digress.

See, that's yet another reading of the same passage: "Change society, but work within the framework given". But then, what does that mean? What constitutes law-abiding? I mean, sure, overturning cars is one extreme. But what about blocking roads, or hunger strikes? Again, back to interpretation being such an open thing, where is the line drawn?

Personally, I'm a fan of passive tactics. Well, i guess that's partly due to being a pacifist. But, as an example, look how the incident at UC Davis with the Occupy kids and the pepper spray was a public opinion turning point. You couldn't say in that scenario that it was deserved-- it's not as easily dismissed as, say, a riot. But I guess I'm straying

[antron]

What about the idea that as society evolves and changes, so does our interpretation of the bible?

sounds great. It just seems like making up your own religion as you go, based on some near arbitrary framework. it's your secular moral compass driving.

I tend towards thinking that your interpretation was the original intent, but what specifically is laying out a class line (as opposed to what I had posted, which was an alternate reading)..?

you mean what verse? just the ones that say the servant obeys the master and the master is good to the servant. but I think this horse is dead.