rmcdra
Cogent Dream
1. What am I grasping at? I merely said that the religious understanding of cause is an unverifiable belief. You mentioned a possible extreme - fundamentalist creationists - but it applies to more than that.
I don't know about that. Memes have yet to be verified yet they are still touted as if they actually exist.
Quote:
2. If it doesn't "conflict with accepted knowledge" then there is no conflict. You already predicated that in your premise. Try not to confuse yourself. And yes, humans do that as well as religion, but we're talking about religion here aren't we?
The point is that it's part of the human condition. Humans would do it regardless of religion. It's done in politics, culture, groups, pretty much any organization.
Quote:
3. You might want to brush up on semantics a little. I never specified religion is limited to just an attempt to explain using a conditional word such as "only, just, limited to" or anything like that. The entire topic of religion cannot possibly be predicated in two sentences, I was just addressing one aspect.
And I have been addressing that one aspect.
Quote:
Also, you continue to assert a concept of no conflict without providing examples, nor do you take into account organised religions do not teach concordism (which is a field in which an attempt is made to reconcile religion with scientific fact). If I didn't make it clear enough last time, I'll reiterate - I'm talking about organised religion with standardised teachings because personal interpretation and person faith are unknowable to anyone but yourself.
I did provide proof. The idea of science and religion being competetors is an
outdated theory. Historians of science no longer support it because the evidence to support isn't there.
Quote:
4. Not only do you imply that what the particular author knew is limited to his/her context, but you essentially affirmed my premise. To "describe purpose" is the same as explaining purpose. Also, you're entirely wrong about the word mythos. It is not the correct literary word - the word mythos is derived from Greek and essentially just means a myth or mythology. Maybe the correct word you were looking for was treatise?
mythos - a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture.
Your right I should have said mythic literature.
Quote:
5. It would have been a lot simpler for you to have simply identified your disagreement based on your viewpoint being one where the more outright incorrect points in scripture are not meant to be taken literally. Hence, you are somewhat of a concordist or a liberal theist. If you made this clear I could have been more direct to you. Keep in mind when I address religion, I have to address it as a whole. I can't pander to every detail unless you tell me what that detail is. Now that I know you believe science and religion are not in conflict, the question changes.
My personal beliefs are irrelevant to the argument, hence why I did not bring them up.
Quote:
First, what do you think of fundamentalist theists? Are they wrong? If no, then you sabotage your own belief. If yes, then you imply that all previous theists before the advent of modern science were wrong, and thus religion was founded on fallacies. So again, the problem is that religion is not logical.
False dichotomy. If I admit yes, it doesn't mean that all previous theists were wrong, because previous theists didn't have the same knowledge or access to information as fundamentalist theists do today. The difference lies in access to knowledge and the knowledge available.
Quote:
Second, if you can claim one portion of the bible to be myth, what prevents you from claiming the rest is myth too? Do you apply your own subjective judgement to it? What makes you fit to judge the writings that represent god's word? And how can you know if any of it is factual if its integrity has already been compromised?
The whole bible can be regarded as mythic literature. It's not a history text, though it does draw from actual events for inspiration. We can verify that there was a Jerusalem, it can't be verified that Jesus died and raised from the dead. The point is that whether is that whether any of it literally happened or not is unimportant to the stories and ideas the culture was trying to convey.
Quote:
6. First of all, you're implying that there is less value is truth and education than there is in moral stories.
How?
Quote:
Second, creationism by itself does not have any intrinsic moral story beyond "god is all powerful". Again, it would have been easier if you asserted your own position first. Since your position is that parts of the bible are myth (including creation), and that most of it is to "describe purpose and cultural identity", I'll address that more specifically.
Creationism in general no, but specific creation stories do. Take the creation story in Genesis, the moral of the story is that when we make a decision we become morally responsible for any consequences that action brings about, even if it affect future generations. Our descendants would have to live with the consequences of our actions though they were not responsible for them. Global warming would be a modern day example of this.
Quote:
First, purpose and identity are not reliant on religion.
Of course not, it's just one organization of culture.
Quote:
To say so would be to accuse all atheists as lacking purpose or identity, which would be arrogant of you.
Never claimed that at all, all I claimed was that science was incapable of explaining purpose and identity which if you are actually following the scientific method, your results should not covey such. It seems more suitable to be addressed by philosophy and culture which both can be non-religious.
Quote:
Second, evolution does have a purpose. In fact, it coincides nicely with Aristotle's greatest purpose, which is the flourishing of a species.
And purpose is subjective, not scientific.
Other's thought this was the purpose evolution explained
Quote:
Also, evolution can provide identity too. We identify ourselves as having a common ancestor to modern apes, and are thus distantly related.
And this is just one element a person can use to building an identity. Identity contains a lot more than "just the fact". Also when did identity become empirical and falsifiable?
1. Personally, I think memes have a much stronger basis for evidence. As we can't work in absolutes, we treat the highly likely as "fact" for all intents and purposes, until something comes along to redefine that "fact". I'm fine with that, it's how things work. Every intellectual pursuit requires a starting point.
2. I think religion aside, conflicts of accepted knowledge are limited to the more prosaic. As far as I can see, religion is the largest rejector of accepted "fact". Of course, we can't perfect the world, but we have to start somewhere to improve it. Not that I think religion should be entirely obliterated either, just that an effort be made by everyone to promote pursuit of knowledge. I like to quote the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution as a fact because it fits nicely with this idea - they see knew knowledge and are willing to accept it.
3. I was just defending my comment that I hadn't specified this as the only aspect of religion. It's irrelevant to this discussion anyway so moving on.
4. I should have clarified that by "conflict" I don't necessarily mean "an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility", I just mean that the ideas and explanations disagree with each other based on a different standard of proof (one being scripture based and the other scientific).
5. I should also clarify that myth is coined after a falling out of belief, or after being reasonably disproven by science. Greek mythology is a modern concept, to them it was a reality. That's why I was surprised you used the word myth, because that implies that you don't actually believe it is factual.
6. Access to information is irrelevant to truth. If I say a tomato is a vegetable, I'm wrong. If I read that it's a fruit, don't believe what I read, and still say it's a vegetable, I'm still wrong. The difference there is just an unwillingness to accept accessible information.
7. I agree that the stories can still have value in conveying cultural ideas, but again, the problem is that they are being touted as absolute truth. It would have been so helpful if the bible simply included a verse saying "don't take me literally". Easier for both of us, and the rest of the world lol. In this sense, I'm no longer trying to prove you "wrong" because I agree with your point of view, I'm just trying to show you that religion has no business claiming to be the truth anymore - but it can still exist for other purposes. I believe somebody said something like "as science answers the physical, religion has increasingly occupied the spiritual realm", and I agree with that path.
8. I think we talked a bit about this in the other thread about the biblical verses saying god gave us the Earth to rule over all its creatures and use them as food, etc. It may have been misinterpreted or be another contradiction (as you quoted non-canon that did not support this view). I don't presume to make an assertion to its meaning, but I do want to point out that as long as obscure verses are there, there will be people that interpret it wrongly and act on it as if it were fact. I fully agree with your example of global warming.
9. Purpose is subjective, I agree. Aristotle's view on it was from an ethics/philosophy point of view. However, I don't think purpose is purely unscientific. Evolutionary purpose seems very scientific to me - without it your species ceases to exist. For example, a self-destructive trait is evolutionarily stupid, which can be broadened into scientifically stupid.
10. I wasn't trying to falsify identity, I was just pointing out that you can get identity from anything. Religion is not a "necessity" by any extent.
Anyway, as I get to know more of how you think and your views, I feel bad for being sharp with you before. Thanks for the well-thought out responses.
100
300
200
100
250
100
500
150
400
150
200
100
200
