What contributes more - science or religion???

[jarofthoughts]

That is because you are putting more value for one than the other....most scientist would say religion has no place in science and as a scientist myself I concur. Religion deals with the metaphysical which is unobservable. Only athiest and theist imply the above.....although theist imply the opposite of what is said above.

I refer you to post #477 higher up on the previous page for my views on this.

 

[Vendetta]

So far atheist or areligious people here have a hard time proving that religion offers no benefit. Especially when I argue that religious value is of a different area.and even if science.doesn't validate religious metaphysical principle research has shown that religion does has some value in mental health and physiology. Both which are measurable. Until athiest can scientifically prove invisible teapots or God doesn't exist or prayer is nothing but wishful thinking its.impossible to construct an argument devaluing religion.

 

[Vendetta]

Religion changes only when it is forced to do so.
It took the Catholic Church about 350 years to fess up and apologize for the way they had treated Gallileo and they are barely accepting Evolution as it is now.
Religion is, whether people like it or not, a huge negative influence on our search for knowledge, for instance when it comes to Stem Cell research these days.



I don't really have that much against whatever people believe in their own homes.
That affects me not at all and I don't really care.
The problem is when people think that arguments from religion actually should have a say out here in the really real world and when they think it should influence our legal system, our educational system and our research.

In other words; religion, shut the @#%& up and we'll have no problem.

Ok. Again catholicism or any Abrahamic religion is not the "be-all-end-all" of all faiths. Again me and waitosec, had this problem. When referring to religion, stop using anecdotal arguments using Abrahamic faiths. If your argument is religion which is a generalization, make a generalized argument. That is like me saying "all spiders perceive the same" while citing only one species of spider.

Or better yet, using a racial example saying "all blacks like watermelon" because you see 10 blacks eat watermelon in your lifetime doesn't mean all like the same thing. So my point is if your argument is about religion not having any value from general and logical (and valid) arguments that religion has no value. If you keep using Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths you are only making an argument on the value of those faiths not other religions.

As far as religion staying out of everyday life you must be referring to conservative proseltyzers who are making their arguments in scientific communities that is fine, but that isn't religion is people promoting their ideals. Religion is an inanimate ideology that isn't "forced" on anybody. Do wiccans encourage their followers to not learn about evolution? What about the taoist, voodoo, or patheist? Can a doctor who is a.polytheist and believes in multiple care bears controlling the world would be less effective as a physican?

 

[waitasec]

So far atheist or areligious people here have a hard time proving that religion offers no benefit.

v baby...
who claimed religion offers no benefit?

Especially when I argue that religious value is of a different area.and even if science.doesn't validate religious metaphysical principle research has shown that religion does has some value in mental health and physiology. Both which are measurable. Until athiest can scientifically prove invisible teapots or God doesn't exist or prayer is nothing but wishful thinking its.impossible to construct an argument devaluing religion.

you might find this interesting...
Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health - Psychiatric Times

mental health does not necessarily mean a stable, meaningful life

who's better off
a delusional person
or
a lucid thinking person

it's quite subjective

 

[Frank Merton]

Religion changes only when it is forced to do so.

That misreads history. Sometimes a church will make pragmatic accommodation with the law, but usually when faced with threats and force, religions become quite resistant.

Religion is, whether people like it or not, a huge negative influence on our search for knowledge, for instance when it comes to Stem Cell research these days.

You say "religion" in order to suit your polemic. You should say, "a few religions, but not most."

I don't really have that much against whatever people believe in their own homes.

Really? You shouldn't have anything to say.

The problem is when people think that arguments from religion actually should have a say out here in the really real world and when they think it should influence our legal system, our educational system and our research.

Start up a censorship system to prevent religious people from having political and free speech rights!!!

In other words; religion, shut the @#%& up and we'll have no problem.

So should all minorities!!!

 

[jarofthoughts]

So far atheist or areligious people here have a hard time proving that religion offers no benefit. Especially when I argue that religious value is of a different area.and even if science.doesn't validate religious metaphysical principle research has shown that religion does has some value in mental health and physiology. Both which are measurable. Until athiest can scientifically prove invisible teapots or God doesn't exist or prayer is nothing but wishful thinking its.impossible to construct an argument devaluing religion.

I don't recall anyone claiming that religion has -no- value, and in either case, that is not what this tread is about. :sarcastic
Unless you can show me that someone has made that argument I have you strongly suspected of trying to set up a straw-man...

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ok. Again catholicism or any Abrahamic religion is not the "be-all-end-all" of all faiths. Again me and waitosec, had this problem. When referring to religion, stop using anecdotal arguments using Abrahamic faiths. If your argument is religion which is a generalization, make a generalized argument. That is like me saying "all spiders perceive the same" while citing only one species of spider.

Christianity has between 2 and 2.2 billion followers and Islam has between 1.5 and 1.7 billion followers. The Abrahamic religions are by far the largest in the world and also those that without question influences the world around them the most. I'd say my criticism was not misplaced. When Shinto has a comparable influence on the world I'll take them on as well, but for now the Japanese can have Amaterasu in peace.

So my point is if your argument is about religion not having any value from general and logical (and valid) arguments that religion has no value.

But seeing as that was not my point, should I ignore your statement?
I never said that religion had no value.
That is a topic for a different discussion and a different tread.

As far as religion staying out of everyday life you must be referring to conservative proseltyzers who are making their arguments in scientific communities that is fine, but that isn't religion is people promoting their ideals.

Ideals which are based in religion.
Seriously, do you think we would have this nonsense creationist movement if there was no religion?
That certain groups would have a despicable hatred for gays?
That they would somehow have got it into their heads that stem-cell research is the work of the devil?
Come on. Let's get real here...

Religion is an inanimate ideology that isn't "forced" on anybody.

So the indoctrination of children is not forcing it on people?
So the death penalty for apostacy in Islam is not forcing it on people?
Are you seriously claiming that religion is not forced on anybody? :sarcastic

Do wiccans encourage their followers to not learn about evolution?

On a global statistical scale wiccans do not exist.
They have about 1 million followers.
They are nobody.
And for the purpose of this discussion they are irrelevant.
(Appologies to any wiccans on the forum but your influence on a global scale is for all intents and purposes non-existent...Sorry.)

Can a doctor who is a polytheist and believes in multiple care bears controlling the world would be less effective as a physican?

He might be.
It depends on the degree he lets his belief in carebears influence his profession.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That misreads history. Sometimes a church will make pragmatic accommodation with the law, but usually when faced with threats and force, religions become quite resistant.

I'm not specifically talking about the law.
I'm talking about facing up to the truth.

The sun does not go around the Earth.
Humans were not created fully formed from a handful of dust.
There was never a global flood.

And bats are not birds.

You say "religion" in order to suit your polemic. You should say, "a few religions, but not most."

When I'm using the Abrahamic religions as my basis I am, in fact, talking about the vast majority of theists in the world. Sorry, but that is the long and the short of it.

Really? You shouldn't have anything to say.

That really depends on the form of belief and worship we're talking about.
In some (extreme) cases belief has led to abuse of children and even death.
But in general I wouldn't have anything to say.
I am of course negative to people having a skewed view of reality, but I am more opposed to the kind of control one would have to implement to stop it, if that is even possible.

Start up a censorship system to prevent religious people from having political and free speech rights!!!

As long as they make political arguments I'm all for it.
It's only when they bring religion into politics I have a problem with it.

So should all minorities!!!

Are you actually suggesting that the religious population is a minority?

 

[Vendetta]

]



I don't really have that much against whatever people believe in their own homes.
That affects me not at all and I don't really care.


In other words; religion, shut the @#%& up and we'll have no problem.

Who says religion has no value? You did. Your premise was that religion or better yet religionist folks should not impart their view on science, particuarly stem cells research. I don't see the harm with a.person expressing their metaphysical view no matter how grandiose it appears. As far as I am concerned in the Behavioral Neuropsychology community there hasn't been any religious influence on research of any kind.

 

[Vendetta]

Christianity has between 2 and 2.2 billion followers and Islam has between 1.5 and 1.7 billion followers. The Abrahamic religions are by far the largest in the world and also those that without question influences the world around them the most. I'd say my criticism was not misplaced. When Shinto has a comparable influence on the world I'll take them on as well, but for now the Japanese can have Amaterasu in peace.



But seeing as that was not my point, should I ignore your statement?
I never said that religion had no value.
That is a topic for a different discussion and a different tread.



Ideals which are based in religion.
Seriously, do you think we would have this nonsense creationist movement if there was no religion?
That certain groups would have a despicable hatred for gays?
That they would somehow have got it into their heads that stem-cell research is the work of the devil?
Come on. Let's get real here...



So the indoctrination of children is not forcing it on people?
So the death penalty for apostacy in Islam is not forcing it on people?
Are you seriously claiming that religion is not forced on anybody? :sarcastic



On a global statistical scale wiccans do not exist.
They have about 1 million followers.
They are nobody.
And for the purpose of this discussion they are irrelevant.
(Appologies to any wiccans on the forum but your influence on a global scale is for all intents and purposes non-existent...Sorry.)



He might be.
It depends on the degree he lets his belief in carebears influence his profession.

Sigh and facepalm to the above. Ok so because of the huge population and historical influence Judeo-Christian and Islamic influences society and societal decisions. Ok I will give you that but getting into specifics of philosophical arguments population density in a religion especially Abrahamic faiths does not determine everyone else regardless how they influenced society--this is an argument for anthropology.

Forcing views on children? Apostasy? First off, aren't parents forcing their values on children? Until children are mature to make their own decisions who cares if religion is forced on children. With apostacy this is dependent on the laws of that land Muslims define their ethics based.on Shari'ah law and the Koran--besides all muslims don't agree on punishments when it comes to apostasy it depends on interpretation...

 

[jarofthoughts]

Who says religion has no value? You did.

Nope.

Your premise was that religion or better yet religionist folks should not impart their view on science, particuarly stem cells research.

Yup. But that does not equate that religion has no value, merely that I think religious views have no place in dealing with science, politics and education.

Stop building straw-men and deal with what I've actually said rather than what you think/want me to say.

I don't see the harm with a.person expressing their metaphysical view no matter how grandiose it appears.

I do.

As far as I am concerned in the Behavioral Neuropsychology community there hasn't been any religious influence on research of any kind.

Neuropshychology is a fairly new branch of science so it is hardly surprising that the religious influence has been lacking.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Sigh and facepalm to the above. Ok so because of the huge population and historical influence Judeo-Christian and Islamic influences society and societal decisions. Ok I will give you that but getting into specifics of philosophical arguments population density in a religion especially Abrahamic faiths does not determine everyone else regardless how they influenced society--this is an argument for anthropology.

It seems valid when dealing with such an overarching question as is posed by the OP that one bases one's arguments from what the norm is.
And when it comes to religion the norm means belonging to one of the Abrahamic faiths.

Forcing views on children? Apostasy? First off, aren't parents forcing their values on children?

Sometimes, yes.
Some children have neo-nazi parents.
I'm negative to them indoctrinating their children too if that's any comfort to you.

Until children are mature to make their own decisions who cares if religion is forced on children.

I do.

With apostacy this is dependent on the laws of that land Muslims define their ethics based.on Shari'ah law and the Koran--besides all muslims don't agree on punishments when it comes to apostasy it depends on interpretation...

Nevertheless, Sharia law is, according to traditional Muslim scholars, quite clear on the matter of apostasy.
Of course, with more than 1.5 billion Muslims you will find people who do not agree with this interpretation, but that is not the issue here.

You claimed that:

Religion is an inanimate ideology that isn't "forced" on anybody.

I have hereby proven you wrong.

 

[Vendetta]

Nope.



Yup. But that does not equate that religion has no value, merely that I think religious views have no place in dealing with science, politics and education.

Stop building straw-men and deal with what I've actually said rather than what you think/want me to say.



I do.



Neuropshychology is a fairly new branch of science so it is hardly surprising that the religious influence has been lacking.

Fairly new yes however much of the neuroscience part has been around since Pavlov. Regardless religion has no say on on neurophysiology. We strictly uphold APA standards and no religion or religious scholars have interfered in any of our studies. The closes debate to Neuropsychology is whether homosexuality is genetic but neuroscience and/or behavioral Neuropsychology has had no problems and I fortell nothing to be a problem in the future.

As far as strawman perhaps I am misunderstanding you. In fact instead saying "you're saying this" I should say "your words are insinuating this"

 

[jarofthoughts]

Fairly new yes however much of the neuroscience part has been around since Pavlov. Regardless religion has no say on on neurophysiology. We strictly uphold APA standards and no religion or religious scholars have interfered in any of our studies. The closes debate to Neuropsychology is whether homosexuality is genetic but neuroscience and/or behavioral Neuropsychology has had no problems and I fortell nothing to be a problem in the future.

Well, that remains to be seen, but this is not the issue.
I claimed that religion has had a negative effect on science and I think that I have adequately shown this to be the case.

As far as strawman perhaps I am misunderstanding you. In fact instead saying "you're saying this" I should say "your words are insinuating this"

Or, you could try to deal with the arguments that I am actually making.
If they are somehow unclear to you I'll be happy to elaborate in the name of accuracy.

 

[Vendetta]

It seems valid when dealing with such an overarching question as is posed by the OP that one bases one's arguments from what the norm is.
And when it comes to religion the norm means belonging to one of the Abrahamic faiths.



Sometimes, yes.
Some children have neo-nazi parents.
I'm negative to them indoctrinating their children too if that's any comfort to you.



I do.



Nevertheless, Sharia law is, according to traditional Muslim scholars, quite clear on the matter of apostasy.
Of course, with more than 1.5 billion Muslims you will find people who do not agree with this interpretation, but that is not the issue here.

You claimed that:



I have hereby proven you wrong.

With regard to societal norms we can look at the macro and micro levels all day. But when talking about religious norma we must take into which society we are talking about. For instance its an accept norm to be a gay christian in the U.S. and Europe than it is to be a gay muslim apostate in Saudo Arabia.

With respect to indoctrination I don't think you got my point. From when we.come out the womb until adulthood we are all influenced in some way whether its religiously or ethically.Parents have a right to indoctrinate their kids. Who are you to even make (or imply) a judgment? So long as the parents aren't harming kids people have a right to indoctrinate their children. Children don't learn to be autonomous until they reach an.age of maturity so by calling it "neonazi" is far fetch statement.

Ok now going to Shari'ah law. Judging by your comment on Shari'ah Law you are no scholar so instead of concluding by assuming "all muslims agree on shariah law punishment on apostates" perhaps you want to google "madhabs (jurisprudence schools of thought) and apostacy." All madhabs don't agree on punishment as all do not say apostacy warrants death. I await your response after you looked over it.

As far as proving me wrong I found it laughable because you really haven't shown anything. I will admit I may have misunderstood what you said by.assuming you were insinuating what I thought you were saying but you haven't proven anything. Thank you for trying.

 

[ninerbuff]

My opinion is religion hasn't changed in a thousand years. It's the same blah, blah, blah so how could it contribute any more than where it's at now? The only thing I think that could happen is that a denomination or religion just increases it's membership.
Science is EVER CHANGING. We learn, we discover, we create, we advance. That's pretty much that facts on both sides.

 

[Vendetta]

Well, that remains to be seen, but this is not the issue.
I claimed that religion has had a negative effect on science and I think that I have adequately shown this to be the case.



Or, you could try to deal with the arguments that I am actually making.
If they are somehow unclear to you I'll be happy to elaborate in the name of accuracy.

Well I come from a religious background and although I am agnostic and areligious I see nothing affecting my thought on science. Let us look at some history. Ancient Egyptians excelled in mathematics physics and biology in their time and the inhabitants lived in a religious society. It is even safe to say those within the dynasties who we believe to be the pioneers of science, were religious themselves. Fast forward what of Plato (or I believe Aristotle) who studied biology and.embryology yet, he was a theist who believed the world was created by the demiurge? The Greco-Roman society was filled with polytheistix and pantheistic dogma yet still science flourished. Moving forward what about the Islamic empire which revived Aristotilean Philosophy and science. Heck, we owe it to the Arabs for Algebra and other medical science contributions. Negative effect on science? Me thinks you might of flunked that part in history sir.

 

[Vendetta]

My opinion is religion hasn't changed in a thousand years. It's the same blah, blah, blah so how could it contribute any more than where it's at now? The only thing I think that could happen is that a denomination or religion just increases it's membership.
Science is EVER CHANGING. We learn, we discover, we create, we advance. That's pretty much that facts on both sides.

Well religion to you may remain stationary but what about the change in the lives of people? Increase in membership? Sure but one cannot doubt the psychological change in the many lives of people. Technological science is changing a faster rate and yes we do see the benefits. But without turning this into technological ethics discussion we also see the side effects upon which technological dependent society has created. I've seen physiological in HIV patients when they've adopted a religious and/or spiritual belief.

 

[Vendetta]

v baby...
who claimed religion offers no benefit?




you might find this interesting...
Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health - Psychiatric Times

mental health does not necessarily mean a stable, meaningful life

who's better off
a delusional person
or
a lucid thinking person

it's quite subjective

Hmmm quite obviously someone with lucid thought is intelligible and clear but mental health is not subject and the fact that you would make such a notion is rubbish. Mental health workers especially clinical psychologist make objective reports on an insividuals and try to find the best psychological methods to achieve some normalcy for the patient.

 

[jarofthoughts]

With regard to societal norms we can look at the macro and micro levels all day. But when talking about religious norma we must take into which society we are talking about. For instance its an accept norm to be a gay christian in the U.S. and Europe than it is to be a gay muslim apostate in Saudo Arabia.

With respect to indoctrination I don't think you got my point. From when we.come out the womb until adulthood we are all influenced in some way whether its religiously or ethically.Parents have a right to indoctrinate their kids. Who are you to even make (or imply) a judgment? So long as the parents aren't harming kids people have a right to indoctrinate their children. Children don't learn to be autonomous until they reach an.age of maturity so by calling it "neonazi" is far fetch statement.

Ok now going to Shari'ah law. Judging by your comment on Shari'ah Law you are no scholar so instead of concluding by assuming "all muslims agree on shariah law punishment on apostates" perhaps you want to google "madhabs (jurisprudence schools of thought) and apostacy." All madhabs don't agree on punishment as all do not say apostacy warrants death. I await your response after you looked over it.

As far as proving me wrong I found it laughable because you really haven't shown anything. I will admit I may have misunderstood what you said by.assuming you were insinuating what I thought you were saying but you haven't proven anything. Thank you for trying.

Do you even read my posts at all? :sarcastic
Or is it that you do not understand what I'm saying?

Let's go over a few points again, just so you can catch up.

Definition of indoctrination: "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically"
Do you still think that the indoctrination of children, who have no way of defending themselves, is ok?

Also, I never called it "neo-nazi". Having parents who are neo-nazis was an example of another group who often indoctrinates their children and, as I've written clearly above, I'm negative to that TOO.

I never said that all Muslims agree on the interpretation of Sharia law.
I did, in fact, say the exact opposite.

As for proving you wrong; again, you said the following:

"Religion is an inanimate ideology that isn't "forced" on anybody."

I have now shown you that it is undoubtedly forced on certain people from time to time, which means that your statement is wrong.
I never said it was forced on everyone all the time.
I just gave you examples of some people having religion forced upon them, and seeing you said this never happens, that means that you were wrong.

For the love of everything nice and fluffy, could you PLEASE actually read my posts before you reply to them?