Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[Theunis]

While I agree with you, for the sake of argument (and to avoid a potential flame war) I'm trying to stick strictly to tangible benefits rather than going into risk/cost assessment. I just know someone at some point will be tempted to pull out the "Yeah, but science also gave us nuclear weapons! *DUM-DUM-DUMMMMMM" line, and I'd rather avoid hurling myself into that particular nest of vipers. In fact, I would probably rather hurl myself into a literal nest of vipers.

By the way did you know that in the 1930's Hitlers scientists went to the near and far east and studied ancient Eastern and Sanskrit writings. From them they learned how to build the atom bomb and "flying saucers". Thus knowledge of the atom bomb came from a religious source!

Take a good look at the Old and New Testaments, view it from a different point of view, and see how many technological things you can find.

 

[Quintessence]

Religions (generally) make objective claims about the nature, makeup and/or origin of reality which are largely determining factors in the tenets and practices they espouse.

"Objective" claims are sometimes made by certain religions. In those cases, sure, it becomes sensible to assess those with the sciences. The issue I have is that the lion's share of what religions are about is not about objective claims, and yet some people in my culture thinks it makes sense to analyze all aspects of religion as if it were like a science when it's not. Huge swaths of what religion is about are indeed more akin to the arts and are not making objective claims or even truth claims.

Objective claims about reality may be either true or false, and as such are open to investigation on their individual merits. Also, I think the idea of "missing the point of religion" is little more than a red herring, since you cannot honestly tell me that there is a singular, objective point to all religious beliefs and claims. Please demonstrate exactly what "the point" of religion is and how you came to this conclusion.

It's not a "red herring," you're just not quite grasping my point here. As said above, sometimes specific religions (or more accurately, specific individuals who claim affiliation with a specific religion or religions) make claims that can/should fall into the domain of the hard sciences. Sometimes, not always. The problem I have with people who fuss and fuss about proof and facts and evidence is that they seem to think that's the be-all and end-all of what religion is and religion does. They seem to think there's a singular point to all religions, and that point is to to make objective claims about reality or have the "truth" or "correct" path. They're wrong. If all we're doing when looking at religions is the slice of it that happens to deal with things that maybe overlap with the sciences, one is missing the point of religions precisely because one isn't covering the diversity of roles religions play in people's lives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Untrue. Human behavior causes those things.

Your statement is akin to saying that atheism causes genocide simply because a number of nasty dictators were atheists.

Unless a religion specifically teaches misguided ethics, stress, and a more limited self, your assertion is false.

Many religions do teach misguided ethics.

Many others teach their followers to accept claims uncritically and to follow authorities obediently, which sets up people to be more easily manipulated.

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing to do with the benefits of religion. To be honest most of these things were started by religious people anyway, so it is not an "either, or". The Enlightenment was driven by religious people.

Nobody is saying "science" is bad

So, are you saying that just because a scientist or innovator is religious, religion should get credit for their achievements. If so, why? I feel like that is quite a reach.

 

[outhouse]

"Objective" claims are sometimes made by certain religions. In those cases, sure, it becomes sensible to assess those with the sciences. The issue I have is that the lion's share of what religions are about is not about objective claims, and yet some people in my culture thinks it makes sense to analyze all aspects of religion as if it were like a science when it's not. Huge swaths of what religion is about are indeed more akin to the arts and are not making objective claims or even truth claims.



It's not a "red herring," you're just not quite grasping my point here. As said above, sometimes specific religions (or more accurately, specific individuals who claim affiliation with a specific religion or religions) make claims that can/should fall into the domain of the hard sciences. Sometimes, not always. The problem I have with people who fuss and fuss about proof and facts and evidence is that they seem to think that's the be-all and end-all of what religion is and religion does. They seem to think there's a singular point to all religions, and that point is to to make objective claims about reality or have the "truth" or "correct" path. They're wrong. If all we're doing when looking at religions is the slice of it that happens to deal with things that maybe overlap with the sciences, one is missing the point of religions precisely because one isn't covering the diversity of roles religions play in people's lives.

In context we are dealing with fanaticism and fundamentalism for which there are no credible excuses.

Religions promote refusal of knowledge. Some require this socially unacceptable action.

 

[Augustus]

So, are you saying that just because a scientist or innovator is religious, religion should get credit for their achievements. If so, why? I feel like that is quite a reach.

Of course not.

My main point was that he main benefits of religions and other ideological belief systems have nothing to do with science.

Apart from in a small number of areas, there is relatively little overlap. That lasers are useful, doesn't mean religions or other unscientific ideologies are unnecessary.

Do you believe that it is realistic to suggest we can create a functioning and vibrant society based purely on the "scientific method"?

If so, what would it look like?

 

[allfoak]

All of humanity is in pursuit of happiness.
We are all here for the same purpose.

Let's suppose for a moment that everyone understood that religion was simply defined as the pursuit of happiness.
Now, rather than define the path as well, let's just say that any path would be fine as long as the goal was kept in focus.
What would happen?

Would we begin to recognize what makes us happy and what doesn't if we were always focused on the goal of being happy?
Would we actually begin to be happy more often because we took charge of our lives and did nothing but things that made us happy?

What if religion had nothing to do with an after life and everything to do with this life?
Would it be easier to come up with some answers as to what this is all about?

Religion is not an institution it is a human right.
We all know what we want.
We want to be free and happy.
We want this because we are human.
Desire is what drives us.
And the freedom to choose is necessary in order to express our desire fully.
Without the freedom to choose we can never find happiness.
There is not one other human being that can make us happy.
We must do it ourselves.

Clearly there is a universal religion that no one can escape.
That religion is to know ourselves.
We must get to know ourselves intimately to find real happiness.

If religion is the pursuit of happiness and getting to know one's self is the only way to find that happiness, then religion stands up to any and all scrutiny.

This is why of course that freedom of religion is so important.

 

[outhouse]

Do you believe that it is realistic to suggest we can create a functioning and vibrant society based purely on the "scientific method"?

Can we better human nature that way?, factually yes we can.


Lets look at cultures who live more religion then less, they tend to be more violent often placing religion before knowledge.


YOU cannot compete education and knowledge verse primitive mythology. There is no equal.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course not.

My main point was that he main benefits of religions and other ideological belief systems have nothing to do with science.

Apart from in a small number of areas, there is relatively little overlap. That lasers are useful, doesn't mean religions or other unscientific ideologies are unnecessary.

Do you believe that it is realistic to suggest we can create a functioning and vibrant society based purely on the "scientific method"?

If so, what would it look like?

Being that the scientific method is basically trial and error, using data/experimentation to find out more about how things work in the universe, I don't see why not. I certainly don't think that belief in the supernatural or any religious belief for that matter is necessary. Why would it be?

 

[Augustus]

Being that the scientific method is basically trial and error, using data/experimentation to find out more about how things work in the universe, I don't see why not. I certainly don't think that belief in the supernatural or any religious belief for that matter is necessary. Why would it be?

It doesn't have to be a supernatural or religious belief, I don't hold any personally. What it is though is a subjective 'transcendental' ideological belief system that is ultimately unprovable.

Be it humanist, nationalist, communist, rationalist, it's just a story that tells you what is important and how you should lead your life.

You admire Churchill which is fair enough, you don't admire him for his rigorous application of scientific principles to his belief system though. He was a romantic in his ideals, as was De Gaul.

And, anyway, a scientific study of successful human societies would demonstrate that they all adhere to 'transcendental' beliefs that give them meaning. Ask an anthropologist.

 

[Augustus]

Did you thank the lord?

"Well presumably you mean a different Lord from the one who almost killed me with a tornado"

 

[leibowde84]

And, anyway, a scientific study of successful human societies would demonstrate that they all adhere to 'transcendental' beliefs that give them meaning. Ask an anthropologist.

This doesn't prove causation, but, instead, mere correlation. They were religious because primitive human beings were pretty much all religious due to a lack of scientific understanding, among other things. The more technologically and scientifically advanced a society gets, the more atheism peeks it's little head.

 

[Quintessence]

This doesn't prove causation, but, instead, mere correlation. They were religious because primitive human beings were pretty much all religious due to a lack of scientific understanding, among other things. The more technologically and scientifically advanced a society gets, the more atheism peeks it's little head.

A statement which is as much of a "mere" correlation as Augustus' statement, and also with a great deal of value-laden mythology thrown into the mix.

 

[Augustus]

This doesn't prove causation, but, instead, mere correlation. They were religious because primitive human beings were pretty much all religious due to a lack of scientific understanding, among other things. The more technologically and scientifically advanced a society gets, the more atheism peeks it's little head.

So they replace god with humanism, Marxism, nationalism, etc.

A subjective 'transcendental' belief system.

 

[leibowde84]

So they replace god with humanism, Marxism, nationalism, etc.

A subjective 'transcendental' belief system.

Maybe humanism, but not Marxism or nationalism, as those are socio-economic philosophies, not religions.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe humanism, but not Marxism or nationalism, as those are socio-economic philosophies, not religions.

One is forced to ignore the real questions, and move goal post out of severe desperation, when holes are punched in ones poor guesses

 

[Thana]

I've maintained for quite a while now that if the claims that a person accepts are no better supported than mutually exclusive claims that the person doesn't accept, then their standard for acceptance of a claim is demonstrably too low.

Like with Atheism and Theism, Since there is no more evidence for Atheism than there is for Theism.

Well didn't you just walk right into that.

 

[leibowde84]

Like with Atheism and Theism, Since there is no more evidence for Atheism than there is for Theism.

Well didn't you just walk right into that.

But Atheism includes those who don't believe that God's existence is impossible, but, instead, merely lack belief in the existence of God.

 

[1AOA1]

Science is a methodology used to ascertain as best we can an objective understanding of the how the world we live in operates. Religions (generally) make claims about how the world we live in operates.

Before a "scientific method" ever begins, you are experiencing the world; discovering yourself and/or a person about begin a "scientific experiment." That world was built through faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like with Atheism and Theism, Since there is no more evidence for Atheism than there is for Theism.

How do you figure?

Also, what do you mean by "Atheism" (with a capital A for some reason) that it would be a discrete thing that would have evidence for it? Atheism is just the condition a person is in if they haven't been convinced of theism. If atheism makes any claims (strong atheism, that is - weak atheism makes no claims at all), it would be that theists haven't made their case.

If whatever you mean by "Atheism" is just as supported by evidence (or not) as theism, then theism hasn't made its case and the actual (strong) atheists are correct.

... and this is even before we consider how a lack of evidence for god creates logical problems for theism.

Well didn't you just walk right into that.

Seems like you werein so much of a hurry to score a cheap point that you didn't think things through.