Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[manic111]

Is it me or have we done this before? Lots?

 

[elmarko]

Well it is really - you presumably rely (believe) in science? Faith is of course trust or confidence in something. I doubt you worship science but it is the basis for you not to believe in religion, am I correct?

Founded confidence to which tangible & independently variable evidence exists isn't faith.

I'm not saying people who have faith are idiots, I'm saying that you don't require faith to known the methods of science work.

If Jesus was walking around today talking to people & performing miracles, it would not be a matter of faith - it would be a matter of fact.

We know the methods of science work as a matter of fact due to it's real world applications & predictive capability.

This is a semantic issue, you are not appreciating that the term 'faith' in a religious context has a different meaning - trust in the scientific method isn't based on spiritual conviction.

faith
feɪθ/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

If it was just people believing in a higher power, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is the religious baggage that comes a long with it.

Indeed, personally I think everybody should be free to believe whatever they want & nobody should care if they do hold a belief or not.

But, once you start slicing off parts of babies without their consent, oppressing women or homosexuals, shielding paedophiles, discouraging the use of contraception in aids ridden areas of the world or demanding tax exception status or other privileges then I start caring.

You are free to follow your religion, you are not free to mutilate children in the name of it, or cause suffering & harm to others members of society based off it's teachings - thankfully in the UK it's almost a non-issue, as the religious community here are very tolerant & accepting (compared to much of the world).

 

[Gilly]

Anyone who claims that science is based on "reality" needs to get themselves some philosophy books out of the library and start to think a bit deeper about what "reality" is.

If you lived your entire life within the confines of an opaque glass jar, you might very well believe that the space inside the jar was "reality" and the jar were the physical limits of reality. But of course there is a whole world beyond that jar which you just cannot perceive.

It's all well and good making practical everyday decisions based on the assumption of reality, but to try and take on theology and philosophy and say "science proves..." is extremely foolish.

Most of what Dawkins argues for example, can be dismissed by returning to our glass jar analogy. Oh sure, he can pick out what HE as a layman considers to be errors in specific doctrine, which is extremely arrogant and foolish. But he can never prove that he's not in a jar and has admitted so himself.

None of that makes sense.

Science would allow you to prove your reality of being encased in a glass jar. Just because it doesn't tell you why or how doesn't mean it isn't your current reality.

You can say "science proves" as much as you want, because that's what science does. Of course, it can only do it within it's own apposite confines but I don't think anyone would ever try to argue that fact :/

 

[boxman2000]

Why would they be opposites. I remember being in school at the age of around 5 years old during morning assembly and they were telling bible stories. I was thinking to myself "do you expect me to believe this?"

I don't see any evidence of a god, I don't see anything good in religion and it saddens me that in 2013 a large portion of the planet still believe in , what I think is, superstitious nonsense.

I'm not saying they are, I'm trying to explain that a belief in science to prove the universe is a form of faith.

It isn't to separate the two as I believe the bible and science go hand in hand but for the non-religious or athiest there is a faith in something, even if it's in nothing... if that makes sense.

This is a semantic issue, you are not appreciating that the term 'faith' in a religious context has a different meaning - trust in the scientific method isn't based on spiritual conviction.

Well it doesn't to be honest because the essence of my point is that you choose not to have a spiritual faith in religion but you base your non-spiritual belief system (or whatever non-religious term you prefer other than believe) on science.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Is it me or have we done this before? Lots?

Weekly.

It's comforting in a Groundhog Day kind of way.

 

[Gilly]

It isn't to separate the two as I believe the bible and science go hand in hand but for the non-religious or athiest there is a faith in something, even if it's in nothing... if that makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense, not at all. You are trying to say that everyone is in a position of faith no matter what, and that simply isn't the case.

 

[spudbynight]

But isn't it often the case that 'if you don't believe what I do then you're wrong?'

That is different question. This is a topic that has been discussed on here ad nauseam. My only point on this discussion is that religion and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, which was the point made by the OP.

 

[wickfut]

Anyone who claims that science is based on "reality" needs to get themselves some philosophy books out of the library and start to think a bit deeper about what "reality" is.

If you lived your entire life within the confines of an opaque glass jar, you might very well believe that the space inside the jar was "reality" and the jar were the physical limits of reality. But of course there is a whole world beyond that jar which you just cannot perceive.

But we don't live in the confines of a jar. There are things that are unanswered but things that are unanswered are just that. They aren't pointing towards a god.

What is the difference between a god that doesn't exist and a god that does exist, but in a different dimension and who has no influence in the world?

 

[elmarko]

No, it doesn't make sense, not at all. You are trying to say that everyone is in a position of faith no matter what, and that simply isn't the case.

A man with only a hammer sees the whole world as nails.

 

[the_r_sole]

snip

that one with the woman is absolutely cracking, hadn't seen it before but lots of chuckles!

 

[Gilly]

A man with only a hammer sees the whole world as nails.

Almost, but not quite. You should look that one up.

Regardless of that, (partially) quoting someone else and not giving any of your own position moves nothing forwards.

 

[koolpc]

The only people who listen to Dawky are the non believers anyway! I wouldn't give him my time etc. He is not from earth! Lol

 

[JonJ678]

There's some truth to it though. If all you have is a hammer, most things do look like nails.

Someone who lives their life by faith is likely to apply faith where is is of limited use.
Someone who lives their life by science is likely to apply science where it is of limited use.

I see the world in terms of mathematics. Good for engineering, bad for people skills.

 

[Gilly]

There's some truth to it though. If all you have is a hammer, most things do look like nails.

I'm not denying that at all

All I'm saying is that we can only use the tools available to us at any given time. That doesn't alter the reality of the situation.

 

[elmarko]

Almost, but not quite. You should look that one up.

Regardless of that, (partially) quoting someone else and not giving any of your own position moves nothing forwards.

I was implying that a man who sees the world through the lens of faith, seems to have a block in accepting that others do not hold a position of faith.

If the latter part was directed at me (not entirely sure) but I've given my view many times already in this thread) - I was simply agreeing with your observation.

 

[OhEsEcks]

If all I have is a hammer, I see things as they are. Nails, windows, fruit, eggs. You know you're not supposed to use it on the latter three, but you have to at least once in life to know you've lived.

 

[JonJ678]

The tools we have available tend to influence our perception of our surroundings. Whether there's an objective reality beyond that appears to be unsolvable. Thus disagreement

 

[gillywibble]

If you believe in miracles, such as, Jesus turning water into wine, you're fairly unintelligent.

If you acknowledge that Jesus turning water into wine is a metaphor, you're on the right track.

Jesus is the sun (son) who was born of a virgin (the constellation of Virgo). He is one but three, the father (morning) the sun (day) and the holy ghost (evening).

He dies each year at the winter solstice, for three days, and is then born again on the 25th of December.

He was betrayed by Judas with a kiss, which is the mark of the scorpion (betrayed in the time of Scorpio).

Jesus had 12 apostles (the zodiac).

The whole story of Jesus is a very clever metaphor, and indeed fascinating.

 

[wickfut]

If you're a believer then it's your choice, similarly if your a non believer.

My opinion is, I don't care about if you do or do not believe.

I get on with life the way I want to.

Which is nice if you live in this country.. Elsewhere in the world you get this:-
Quotes from Wiki

Brazil
A 2009 survey showed that atheists are the most hated demographic group in Brazil, among several other minorities polled, being almost on par with drug addicts. According to the research, 17% of the interviewees stated they feel either hate or repulse for atheists, while 25% feel antipathy and 29% are indifferent.

Some American states
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

Islamic countries
Atheists, or those accused of holding atheistic beliefs, may be subject to discrimination and persecution in some Islamic countries. Compared to other nations, atheists "in Islamic countries face the most severe - sometimes brutal - treatment ..."

Algeria
The study of Islam is a requirement in public and private schools for every Algerian child, irrespective of his/her religion.

Atheist or agnostic men are prohibited from marrying Muslim women

etc etc

 

[Schlong&Stable]

None of that makes sense.

Science would allow you to prove your reality of being encased in a glass jar. Just because it doesn't tell you why or how doesn't mean it isn't your current reality.

You can say "science proves" as much as you want, because that's what science does. Of course, it can only do it within it's own apposite confines but I don't think anyone would ever try to argue that fact :/

Well what I have presented is a much simpler form of Plato's Cave. Philosophers have been thinking on this for thousands of years, so I am glad to see you think you can wrap it up in a matter of a few sentences.

Science would NOT allow you to prove you're in a jar UNLESS you had the tools to do so. So for a start, we might imagine that science lacks the tools to perceive beyond our jar.

Secondly, you are assuming that this jar exists within the material world. You're reading things too literally. If the jar is (for want of a better term) divine and existing outside the mundane universe, then by it's very definition, you will not be able to penetrate the barrier with scientific method, since science is purely within the physical realm.