Why is religion still relevant?

February 20, 2015, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: Statefarm on February 19, 2015, 04:15:54 PM

Why is science still relevant?

Spoiler

YouTube

Turkey · February 20, 2015, 10:11:12 PM

Quote from: Baha on February 20, 2015, 09:48:41 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:13:42 AM
See above. Religion as a means of explaining the machinations the universe is the precursor the rigor of modern-day science.
This is whole lot like crediting "making things up" as the basis of science.

Not really, since science developed through the same motivations and processes that inspired religious exploration: the desire to understand the universe. Like I already explained.

February 20, 2015, 10:32:20 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2015, 10:11:12 PM

Quote from: Baha on February 20, 2015, 09:48:41 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:13:42 AM
See above. Religion as a means of explaining the machinations the universe is the precursor the rigor of modern-day science.
This is whole lot like crediting "making things up" as the basis of science.

Not really, since science developed through the same motivations and processes that inspired religious exploration: the desire to understand the universe. Like I already explained.

I really don't see a sense in which they share the same processes, and having the same motivations does not make one the basis of the other, even if one preceeds the other.

Science does not form the basis of googling things.
Cave paintings do not form the basis of music.
Hunting does not form the basis of aquaculture.

Religion was the precursor to science and fulfilled some of the same role in society, but that doesn't make it the basis of science. At some point we're only disagreeing on what that word means so it's immaterial but I think your definition is silly.

Turkey · February 20, 2015, 10:40:36 PM

Quote from: Baha on February 20, 2015, 10:32:20 PM

Religion was the precursor to science and fulfilled some of the same role in society, but that doesn't make it the basis of science. At some point we're only disagreeing on what that word means so it's immaterial but I think your definition is silly.

I said it's the historical foundation of science, meaning the scientific process developed from the search to learn more about the world around us, which is the overarching goal of religions and philosophy. You recognize religion as a precursor but all you're trying to do is deny the religious roots that modern science has, probably as a result of bias against religion.

February 20, 2015, 10:56:45 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2015, 10:40:36 PM

Quote from: Baha on February 20, 2015, 10:32:20 PM
Religion was the precursor to science and fulfilled some of the same role in society, but that doesn't make it the basis of science. At some point we're only disagreeing on what that word means so it's immaterial but I think your definition is silly.

I said it's the historical foundation of science, meaning the scientific process developed from the search to learn more about the world around us, which is the overarching goal of religions and philosophy. You recognize religion as a precursor but all you're trying to do is deny the religious roots that modern science has, probably as a result of bias against religion.

I'm pretty convinced we're using the term basis to mean different things.
No possible historical consideration you can argue for will establish that religion at this moment in time forms the basis of the modern practice of science, or in the context of this thread, that it should be considered to have modern relevance based on its role in the modern practice of science. So the reply "It's the basis of science" being used to answer OP's question is silly.

For comparison, alchemy has an even greater claim to being called the historical foundation of chemistry and earns no modern relevance based on that fact.

Turkey · February 20, 2015, 11:09:08 PM

Quote from: Baha on February 20, 2015, 10:56:45 PM

I'm pretty convinced we're using the term basis to mean different things.
No possible historical consideration you can argue for will establish that religion at this moment in time forms the basis of the modern practice of science, or in the context of this thread, that it should be considered to have modern relevance based on its role in the modern practice of science. So the reply "It's the basis of science" being used to answer OP's question is silly.

For comparison, alchemy has an even greater claim to being called the historical foundation of chemistry and earns no modern relevance based on that fact.

I haven't even used the word 'basis'. I've said it's the historical foundation. It's still relevant in the same way any other school of philosophy is, because it's tangential to science in the pursuit of understanding of the world. I also provided several other reasons for its relevance. Alchemy is defunct. Philosophy is not.

February 20, 2015, 11:22:22 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2015, 11:09:08 PM

I haven't even used the word 'basis'. I've said it's the historical foundation. It's still relevant in the same way any other school of philosophy is, because it's tangential to science in the pursuit of understanding of the world. I also provided several other reasons for its relevance. Alchemy is defunct. Philosophy is not.

You're right, your first post says "it's the foundation of science", not "basis" which is on me, but it also doesn't say historical. If you'd said historical I wouldn't find anything factually wrong with that but wouldn't find it a reason to consider religion to have continued relevance. I guess I've just misunderstood you.

On a different note though, I said nothing about philosophy anywhere here, and religion and philosophy are different things. One isn't even a subset of the other.

tl;dr words are clunky

Turkey · February 20, 2015, 11:33:34 PM

Quote

On a different note though, I said nothing about philosophy anywhere here, and religion and philosophy are different things. One isn't even a subset of the other.

Religion is unquestionably a subset of philosophy.

You're welcome to not believe in any religion or follow any particular philosophy, or even care to study any. You're welcome to think religion is stupid and its followers are idiots, and you're certainly welcome to think it has no place in the modern world and support that with compelling arguments. Let's have actual discourse though, instead of running around semantics.

Turkey, out.

Spoiler

Edited a lot out because I'm tired and sounded like a real asshole.

February 20, 2015, 11:56:22 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2015, 11:33:34 PM

(old post edited out)

If I've given the impression I'm avoiding your claim/failed to refute that science has historical roots in religion and cherrypicking other parts of your argument, its because I don't disagree, science has historical roots in religion.

My only objection was based on reading your original post which called religion (without qualification) the foundation of science, which I disagree with. If your intention was to clarify you weren't making that claim, I missed it and that's my mistake. The rest of your argument I intentionally didn't touch because I wasn't interested in contesting it.

Religion may have quite a bit of overlap with philosophy, and many/most religions have a large philosophical element, but philosophy is not a requirement for something to be religion. Think any of various creation beliefs.

Mattie G Indahouse · February 21, 2015, 05:18:09 AM

Besides politics how else are people supposed to wage war or conflicts?

The Lord Slide Rule · February 23, 2015, 07:52:03 AM

I have to kind of go w/ turkey here, fedora tipper that I am. Science as we know it originally began w/ the assumption that God would create a comprehensible universe w/ regular laws that govern it.

This assumption, which still sort of holds in physics in the form of timeless laws, suggests to me that we should probably rethink how we think of natural law.

Maxine · February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM

Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.

maverick · February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM

Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.

Do you really believe that?

Maxine · February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM

Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?

Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.

maverick · February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM

Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.

Like what?

Luciana · February 25, 2015, 01:05:45 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM

Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.

Couldn't you easily counter that with laws that exist in non secular governments?

Sharia law is the prominent one that kinda comes into play, and religious run governments have typically been more oppressive than secular ones. Why do you think Turkey is probably the only muslim country that isn't oppressing women left and right or blowing shit up?

Maxine · February 27, 2015, 11:35:48 PM

Quote from: Maverick on February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.
Like what?

Legal abortion, euthanasia, religion not allowed in public (in some places, like France), religion not allowed in schools, religious things not allowed on public property, etc.

big sponge · February 27, 2015, 11:47:32 PM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 27, 2015, 11:35:48 PM

Quote from: Maverick on February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.
Like what?
Legal abortion, euthanasia, religion not allowed in public (in some places, like France), religion not allowed in schools, religious things not allowed on public property, etc.

I'm failing to see how this stuff is a bad thing.

A woman's right to chose isn't "devoid of morality".

Neither is government not respecting the establishment of any religion. By not promoting any single religion it's keeping all of them equal. I mean, unless you see the government keeping your religion equal to all others as "devoid of morality".

Luciana · February 28, 2015, 12:16:20 AM

Pretty much what LC said.

Basically "I don't like this because they're not promoting religion" is what you're sounding like, Max.

I don't give a fuck what religion you are. No old ass white men should be able to dictate what the hell a woman can or can't do with your body.

Same with religion in school. It doesn't have to be there. Go to church and get over it or go to Catholic school. I hate the Roman Catholic Church anyway for way too many reasons.

Maxine · February 28, 2015, 12:21:26 AM

Quote from: LC on February 27, 2015, 11:47:32 PM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 27, 2015, 11:35:48 PM
Quote from: Maverick on February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.
Like what?
Legal abortion, euthanasia, religion not allowed in public (in some places, like France), religion not allowed in schools, religious things not allowed on public property, etc.

I'm failing to see how this stuff is a bad thing.

A woman's right to chose isn't "devoid of morality".

Neither is government not respecting the establishment of any religion. By not promoting any single religion it's keeping all of them equal. I mean, unless you see the government keeping your religion equal to all others as "devoid of morality".

"society is immoral without religion"
"why?"
"because, x"
"x isn't immoral tho"

see, you're kind of proving my point to me.

Luciana · February 28, 2015, 12:22:17 AM

If you're so pro religion, go to the middle east and look how it works out. Secular governments have proven over human history in the more modern age to be far more tolerant and successful than non secular ones. It's exactly why Turkey is one of the few, if not ONLY Muslim country not entirely ass backwards.

Cindy · February 28, 2015, 12:35:11 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 27, 2015, 11:35:48 PM

Quote from: Maverick on February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.
Like what?
Legal abortion, euthanasia, religion not allowed in public (in some places, like France), religion not allowed in schools, religious things not allowed on public property, etc.

You'd better pray to god that my pimp hand is too weak to do any permanent damage to your face with that kind of attitude.

You literally embody the stereotypical kind of bible-thumper. The inverse of a fedora-tipping atheist who calls out any Church goers on Sundays for worshipping an evil god, and who shames Muslims for following a child rapist, as if those were the only ideals of their respective religions.

Yes, of course, morality is entirely lost without religion. That makes perfect sense, naturally, if you assume that HELL IS THE ONLY REASON NOT TO DO SOMETHING. That's looking at something from a toddler's point of view. What you're suggesting is that people say, "Man, I don't wanna stab that guy or I'll go to hell" instead of "Man, I really don't wanna stab that guy because stabbing someone is a shitty thing to do."

Do you not understand the concept of empathy at all? Do you not understand why people don't go on murder sprees in usual society? I can pretty much guarantee you it wasn't because of religion. One of the first religions was that of the Assyrians; Ashurism. Ashur spoke through Ashurbanipal, and commanded the Assyrians to conquer and slaughter so that he would not have to destroy the world in a fiery rage. What noble beginnings, amirite?

Of course modern day radical sects of Islam such as wahabism, old-age Christians such as those during the first and third crusades, Japanese lords who crucified dutch priests, a written justification for owning slaves, and of course the lovely Hong Xiuquan who started a horrific rebellion which ended in the slaughter of millions due to a following which believed that he was the younger sibling of Christ all prove that religion works as an absolutely superb moral compass, yes? Naturally, those who are spiritual tend to be less shitty than those who are not, right?

No, not really. Some people are shitty, and others aren't. Religion has little to do with those things. I won't shit on your personal beliefs, but it's when you try to force them onto others that it becomes an issue. Governmental support of religion, school-system support of religion, and other things as such are all banned BECAUSE of those exact reasons. Nobody is saying that your child can't say a prayer in school, they're simply saying that the school can't force the secular child in the corner to say a prayer along with him.

Of course, you're also anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, so it's not as though I see you on the moral high ground of many standpoints.

Luciana · February 28, 2015, 12:38:39 AM

Daaaaamn... Cindy bringin it hard with real facts and great points. Marry me.

big sponge · February 28, 2015, 12:45:55 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 28, 2015, 12:21:26 AM

Quote from: LC on February 27, 2015, 11:47:32 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 27, 2015, 11:35:48 PM
Quote from: Maverick on February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.
Like what?
Legal abortion, euthanasia, religion not allowed in public (in some places, like France), religion not allowed in schools, religious things not allowed on public property, etc.

I'm failing to see how this stuff is a bad thing.

A woman's right to chose isn't "devoid of morality".

Neither is government not respecting the establishment of any religion. By not promoting any single religion it's keeping all of them equal. I mean, unless you see the government keeping your religion equal to all others as "devoid of morality".
"society is immoral without religion"
"why?"
"because, x"
"x isn't immoral tho"

see, you're kind of proving my point to me.

People not agreeing with your world view is proof that humanity would be "devoid of morality" without religion?

We can't exactly continue this conversation if you've already closed off every avenue of discussion in the assumption that you're already correct.

On the subject of you apparently believing that your religion deserves to be put on a pedestal instead of being treated equally like every other religion I'll say get in line. Just about every religion ever has believed it's the correct religion. Yours is no different.

Maxine · February 28, 2015, 12:47:47 AM

Quote from: Cindy on February 28, 2015, 12:35:11 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 27, 2015, 11:35:48 PM
Quote from: Maverick on February 25, 2015, 12:59:26 AM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 25, 2015, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: Maverick on February 24, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 24, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Because the human race would be lost and devoid of morality without it.
Do you really believe that?
Considering the kind of laws that exist in secular nations today, yes.
Like what?
Legal abortion, euthanasia, religion not allowed in public (in some places, like France), religion not allowed in schools, religious things not allowed on public property, etc.
You'd better pray to god that my pimp hand is too weak to do any permanent damage to your face with that kind of attitude.

You literally embody the stereotypical kind of bible-thumper. The inverse of a fedora-tipping atheist who calls out any Church goers on Sundays for worshipping an evil god, and who shames Muslims for following a child rapist, as if those were the only ideals of their respective religions.

Yes, of course, morality is entirely lost without religion. That makes perfect sense, naturally, if you assume that HELL IS THE ONLY REASON NOT TO DO SOMETHING. That's looking at something from a toddler's point of view. What you're suggesting is that people say, "Man, I don't wanna stab that guy or I'll go to hell" instead of "Man, I really don't wanna stab that guy because stabbing someone is a shitty thing to do."

Do you not understand the concept of empathy at all? Do you not understand why people don't go on murder sprees in usual society? I can pretty much guarantee you it wasn't because of religion. One of the first religions was that of the Assyrians; Ashurism. Ashur spoke through Ashurbanipal, and commanded the Assyrians to conquer and slaughter so that he would not have to destroy the world in a fiery rage. What noble beginnings, amirite?

Of course modern day radical sects of Islam such as wahabism, old-age Christians such as those during the first and third crusades, Japanese lords who crucified dutch priests, a written justification for owning slaves, and of course the lovely Hong Xiuquan who started a horrific rebellion which ended in the slaughter of millions due to a following which believed that he was the younger sibling of Christ all prove that religion works as an absolutely superb moral compass, yes? Naturally, those who are spiritual tend to be less shitty than those who are not, right?

No, not really. Some people are shitty, and others aren't. Religion has little to do with those things. I won't shit on your personal beliefs, but it's when you try to force them onto others that it becomes an issue. Governmental support of religion, school-system support of religion, and other things as such are all banned BECAUSE of those exact reasons. Nobody is saying that your child can't say a prayer in school, they're simply saying that the school can't force the secular child in the corner to say a prayer along with him.

Of course, you're also anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, so it's not as though I see you on the moral high ground of many standpoints.

Why on earth would you think I don't like Muslims? I said no such thing.

And I never said there is no morality without religion, only that there is less morality without it.

And by the way, a Christian who only doesn't stab people because they'd go to hell for it, is probably still going to hell.

Cindy · February 28, 2015, 12:49:06 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 28, 2015, 12:47:47 AM

Why on earth would you think I don't like Muslims? I said no such thing.

And I never said there is no morality without religion, only that there is less morality without it.

And by the way, a Christian who only doesn't stab people because they'd go to hell for it, is probably still going to hell.

I was saying you were the opposite of a stereotypical "anti-theist" atheist who most likely thinks in the ways I listed, not that you think in those ways.

And I do hold a bit more respect for you because of the last part. I can appreciate that outlook, at least.

big sponge · February 28, 2015, 12:50:54 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 28, 2015, 12:47:47 AM

And I never said there is no morality without religion, only that there is less morality without it.

I'm sorry what?

Luciana · February 28, 2015, 12:53:42 AM

hhhhhhhhhhhhheh

Maxine · February 28, 2015, 12:56:27 AM

Quote from: LC on February 28, 2015, 12:50:54 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 28, 2015, 12:47:47 AM
And I never said there is no morality without religion, only that there is less morality without it.

I'm sorry what?

sometimes I am overly pessimistic, and also the post was sort of a retort to the OP, which I found offensive.

big sponge · February 28, 2015, 01:09:25 AM

Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 28, 2015, 12:56:27 AM

Quote from: LC on February 28, 2015, 12:50:54 AM
Quote from: Madmaxepic on February 28, 2015, 12:47:47 AM
And I never said there is no morality without religion, only that there is less morality without it.

I'm sorry what?
sometimes I am overly pessimistic.

"Lost and devoid of morality" and "less morality without it" are very different bro. I don't know how you thought you'd get away with claiming you said the latter instead of the former.

Also asking you why religion is still relevant is hardly offensive. It's an opportunity for you to educate, not berate.