Science must destroy religion

[Soldier_Of_God]

If someone says to me, that if they lost their faith in their Deity, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day long, because they could, since morality wouldn’t exist, I have no reason to not believe them, because I know that religious extremism exists, within all religions.

I have no reason to think they are lying to me.

And in all honesty, I find that thought very troubling and quite frightening, because what happens if such a person does indeed lose their faith?

This is why I said, truthfully, there are certain people I would hope never lose their faith.

Sarah x

Are you not able to distinguish fact from hyperbole? Do you really believe people can go from law abiding citizens to serial criminals because of a lapse of faith? They would go on to commit crimes all day long? This sounds extremely implausible. Having no concrete grounds to think someones is not lying doesn’t oblige you actively believe everything they state. Don’t be so easily troubled by obvious misrepresentations as anxiety and stress are unhealthy.

 

[atheistgirl]

Are you not able to distinguish fact from hyperbole?

I am and can. But it’s not so straightforward dealing with an unknown anonymous person on the internet.

Do you really believe people can go from law abiding citizens to serial criminals because of a lapse of faith?

If some one of faith tells me they can, how can I know that’s not true?

They would go on to commit crimes all day long?

As above.

This sounds extremely implausible.

Not to me. People do extreme things, all the time. People of faith do extreme things all the time. If a person previously of faith, lost that faith, and in addition, states they would go on a rampage if that happened, because there can be no morality for them, and they don’t care, they can do what they like, as they’re life is pointless and meaningless, who’s to say that’s not true. I have given them the curtesy of believing them.

Having no concrete grounds to think someones is not lying doesn’t oblige you actively believe everything they state.

I took them at their word. No more.

Don’t be so easily troubled by obvious misrepresentations as anxiety and stress are unhealthy.

How do you know their representations are abviously false?

Religious people do extreme things all the time. I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue to be an extremist of some sort if that faith was lost. There’s obviously something in their personality that gives them over to extremism, and we see that all the time with some individuals.

They don’t trouble me. I just wish them well in their faith and hope they never lose it

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Science gives us understanding of the material world. Nothing more. How it is applied determines its utility to humanity, whether it is in the form of developing atomic weapons to kill millions or to create a vaccine to save millions. It is not a substitute for a moral or value system. Those that think so are disconnected from reality.

I would love to see some one attempt to prove that moral values are based on scientific theories!

 

[tonyrey]

The scientific method won’t just keep right on working if there is a nuclear holocaust as the result of the rejection of morality! It will come to a sudden, savage end…

My initial statement was:

Science without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Obviously the two are completely different scenarios. I’d agree that if people suddenly lost their ability to have morals then society would almost inescapably collapse. But obviously just losing religion would have no such effect.

If science is the only valid explanation of reality science cannot explain morality. It follows that science without morality is a recipe for disaster.

In any case of course your point is still incorrect, the scientific method will keep right on working no matter what happened to our species. Sure there might be no people left alive to make use of the tool but the tool would be unaffected.

Sheer nonsense!

Without people there may be unused scientific instruments but they will be useless. The scientific method will cease to work because there is no one to work it!

The worshippers of science will have been highly successful in destroying not only religion but themselves into the bargain…

Obviously incorrect as well. Take away religion and people would still be people. They’d just be people without religion. Your prediction of a resulting global holocaust is, well rather silly.

It is not silly but absurd to believe there will not be global holocaust without religion:

1. Religion is a foundation for morality
2. Science is not a foundation for morality
3. Therefore science without religion is a recipe for disaster

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I never want people to lose their faith. It’s this faith that is keeping me and my children safe. According to many posters of faith here - mostly Christian - if they didn’t believe in their Deity, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day long Their faith is the only thing stopping them.

Long may they continue to believe - well, at least until my kids are grown and can take care of themselves

Sarah x

I’m just curious; what’s stopping YOU from doing all the above?

You don’t seem like an atheist to me. You seem like someone whose faith is intense. But your faith is in science.

 

[ASimon]

J_Peterson:

Atheists either like to ignore or dismiss the experiential aspects of religion but they are very real.

Such as?

Have experiments been done that prove the existence of a Deity?

Sarah x

I think what J_P might be referring to are the various “spiritual” experiences that religious believers tend to have in the context of their faith. I agree about the reality of these experiences (that is to say, I don’t think people are lying about having them). I just disagree that these experiences mean what religious believers tend to assert they mean.

And I also agree that atheists tend to dismiss claims of these experiences in toto. This isn’t necessary, as these sorts of experiences have been reported by believers of many different faiths, along with non-believers, and they can accessed and explored in a wholly secular, scientific context.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I am and can. But it’s not so straightforward dealing with an unknown anonymous person on the internet.

Not as straightforward but quite possible.

If some one of faith tells me they can, how can I know that’s not true?

Based on your reasoning, how can you know the existence of God is not true? Stating something does not make it true. I’m sure your personal creed dictates that you need substantive evidence to believe in the truth of something. Why not in this case?

Not to me. People do extreme things, all the time. People of faith do extreme things all the time.

If they have lost their faith, then they are not a person of faith. Maybe if you cite an example as evidence that this has occurred, it would lend credibility to your position. That someone of faith, in losing their faith, decided to commit terrible attrocities because they feel they no longer bound by moral obligation. If there is no reasonable example you can cite, it you seem your fear is largely based on fallible personal bias.

I have given them the curtesy of believing them.
I took them at their word. No more.

Unfortunately, that is not true. You cite this point and use it to accentuate the negative connotations with regards to persons of faith. This is more than taking them for their word. It’s being used as a pretense to justify your unfavouring view of persons of faith in a public forum.

Religious people do extreme things all the time. I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue to be an extremist of some sort if that faith was lost.

There’s obviously something in their personality that gives them over to extremism, and we see that all the time with some individuals.

This would seem to be a more reasonable position, that extremism, rather than faith, is to be concerning. The overwhelming majority of faithful persons are reasonable moderates. It would seem you have more to fear from people like the Unibomber and Jeffrey Dahmer.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I would love to see some one attempt to prove that moral values are based on scientific theories!

Science explores the material world. Morals and values have a philosophical context about what is right behaviour. I think, by definition, this is impossible.

 

[exoflare]

Bye bye :tiphat:

I won’t be drawn into a personalized childish spat

As of now, your posts are no longer visible to me

Sarah x

At least you won’t have to worry about anyone taking you seriously now after seeing how dishonest you are. Happy future trolling to you and good riddance.

 

[atheistgirl]

I think what J_P might be referring to are the various “spiritual” experiences that religious believers tend to have in the context of their faith. I agree about the reality of these experiences (that is to say, I don’t think people are lying about having them). I just disagree that these experiences mean what religious believers tend to assert they mean.

And I also agree that atheists tend to dismiss claims of these experiences in toto. This isn’t necessary, as these sorts of experiences have been reported by believers of many different faiths, along with non-believers, and they can accessed and explored in a wholly secular, scientific context.

Doh!

I read experimental, instead of experiential

I agree, I don’t dismiss these ‘‘spiritual’’ experiences.

I’ve had them myself, but I would not use the word spiritual, giving birth to my own children, and placing that pure, new, life for the very first time on my breast.

Cuddling my family around a fire, staring up at the night sky.

Helping one of my mares deliver her foal.

The first time I ever looked through a telescope at the moon, or the first time I saw Jupiter and her moons.

It made me realize just how utterly inconsequential we were in the universal scheme of things, which made me appreciate every moment of the life I have.

There isn’t a week that goes by that I don’t have some kind of experience of the numinous.

But I know the locus where all this is happening is my own brain and my feelings and senses.

No Deity required.

Sarah x

 

[TimothyH]

I’m surprised no one has brought up sam harris’s latest attack on religion in his paper titled “science must destroy religion”. I’m assuming the reason its not being discussed is that its a banned topic here. If it is does anyone know where Catholics are discussing it? So far i’m seeing it largely unchallenged on the internet and wondering why Catholics are ignoring it.

It’s from Jan, 2006.

-Tim-

 

[CopticChristian]

On what grounds would you challenge it? I read it and wanted to applaud…

Sair,

I am in total agreement with you. I was amazed at how succintly he pointed out the ludicrous way people can think. Take this example.

There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon “faith” to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque

Now on the other hand…here is what I see…you are going to have a real hard time convincing the Jews that Circumcision has nothing to do with what they believe. Can you imagine…well at least I can’t telling those Orthodox guys in particular…hey cut your beards, forget the things on your head…and cutting at birth…science has proven you wrong…now then you are going to have to deal with the Torah, Talmud…and all that other stuff…quite a monumental task…

Next, you know that there are Samritans today that existed way back when…how are you going to convince these guys that Science is right and they are wrong…they have been translating everything in time to each other to the point where people are born into this thinking year after year after year…

Then, I don’t know if you have look, but next time you drive down the street, take a look at how many crosses you see on buildings…now I don’t know what you see, but there are more crosses on buildings then there are buildings with models of DNA, or the Atom or the like…now I do recall going to disneyland when they had Monsanto Home of the Future and of course then there is Adventureland with all the science stuff and monuments to Science but this is only a small part of the world…WHOAAAAA…are you maybe saying that Walt Disney and Disneyland are the wave of the future and we are going to be seeing these monuments to science…NAhhhhhh…that is just a pipe dream.

But, hey thanks for bringing this to my attention.

 

[atheistgirl]

Based on your reasoning, how can you know the existence of God is not true? Stating something does not make it true. I’m sure your personal creed dictates that you need substantive evidence to believe in the truth of something. Why not in this case?

Extremists are a fact of life. Lots of evidence for them. If some one self identifies as an extremist, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to believe they are telling the truth.

God - no evidence of the existence of such a Being. (to me)

Lots of evidence for the existence of extremists.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

Yes. It is.

You cite this point and use it to accentuate the negative connotations with regards to persons of faith.

No, some persons of faith. Not all persons of faith. I have nothing but admiration and appreciation and gratitude to those people of faith who get stuck in to the issues affecting the poor, the suffering, the ill, the homeless, the hungry and provide practical solutions to real problems affecting real people. I’ve expressed my appreciation for the fact the Catholic church is the largest charitable organization on the planet.

But some people of faith, some, are capable of extremism, and not in a good way!

It’s being used as a pretense to justify your unfavouring view of persons of faith in a public forum.

Another judgemental Christian. I don’t have an unfavorable view of people of faith. I have an unfavorable view of people of faith, who claim, if they lost that faith, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day long. Yes, I have an unfavorable view of such people. With or without faith.

Your assertion is not true, but after this reply is posted, I won’t see any more of your posts so go right ahead and make all the assertions about me you like.

Sarah x

 

[exoflare]

Your assertion is not true, but after this reply is posted, I won’t see any more of your posts so go right ahead and make all the assertions about me you like.

lol… That’s her solution to everything I guess. Kind of ironic for someone who pays so much lip-service to the value of evidence and itellectual openness.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb8GPXtdwHBGMMLfNIPCac71R99ZaGRaU7TsRelUntEGVKCuqn

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m just curious; what’s stopping YOU from doing all the above?

My philosophy of life which includes, among other things, doing as much good and as little harm to people, animals and the environment, for the short time I’m here.

My morals, evolved from our social developmental history, that tell me it’s wrong to hurt others, and murdering, raping and pillaging hurt people.

But your faith is in science.

And people and animals

Sarah x

 

[Cristiano]

My philosophy of life which includes, among other things, doing as much good and as little harm to people, animals and the environment, for the short time I’m here.

My morals, evolved from our social developmental history, that tell me it’s wrong to hurt others, and murdering, raping and pillaging hurt people.

And people and animals

Sarah x

So you are saying that murdering, raping and pillaging could be good things too, just not in your societal schemes.

 

[atheistgirl]

So you are saying that murdering, raping and pillaging could be good things too, just not in your societal schemes.

Nope.

In that case, I might think the sacking of Beziers by the holy cruisaders, on a mission from their God, and the 20,000 deaths that followed, of men, women and children, might be a good thing.

Sarah x

 

[edwest2]

I’m afraid I must disagree there. Religions have a long history of banning research or books on topics which conflict with the interests or views of the adherents or leadership of religions.*

Even today a number of branches of medical research are actively campaigned against on religious grounds. Now perhaps you could argue that IF the claims of the religion are accurate then inhibiting that scientific research may be a good thing. But clearly it is incorrect to claim that religion doesn’t inhibit scientific research at all.

Of course ultimately I’m sure that scientific research will overcome the obstacle. It has an excellent track record in this department. But that doesn’t mean the obstacle never existed.

So what you are saying is that if religion no longer existed then humans would still be humans, and they would still find reasons for conflict. They’d just have one less reason.*

If so then I think I agree with you. The human race continues to develop technologically, socially and ethically and I’m sure will continue to do so. But it would be erroneous to think that any single social change would solve all ills.

One tenet of the Church is this: it proposes but never imposes. You would have to provide a few good examples of where religion has inhibited scientific research. I don’t think it’s valid to claim that any research is inhibited because of religious beliefs. There were scientists involved with developing the atomic bomb, and they had some concerns about releasing such a force. And Robert Oppenheimer later realized that a terrible weapon had been created.

“In some sort of crude sense, which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer

The human race will not make any significant changes in the wisdom of the ages on the ethical and social fronts. Mr. Harris makes a case for his brand of Utopia. I have already laid out the most likely scenarios.

Human nature will continue to exist in Mr. Harris’ desired world. Technology will not save us on the ethical or social fronts. As a student of the history of science and technology, there are only two possible outcomes: a global surveillance state still filled with human beings whose primary goal will be to manipulate the system or wage war. The second scenario is far simpler: total control by a scientific dictatorship, with an elite that will be allowed to live outside the limits given to the common man.

Who funds science today? The military, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, private industry that can be manipulated, and wealthy individuals. The average man on the street is unaware of this. The fabulously wealthy will continue to have things their way regardless of who’s in charge.

And if you’re skeptical about science being manipulated, I offer the following:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Peace,
Ed

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

No, some persons of faith. Not all persons of faith.

Another judgemental Christian. I don’t have an unfavorable view of people of faith. I have an unfavorable view of people of faith, who claim, if they lost that faith, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day long. Yes, I have an unfavorable view of such people. With or without faith.

Here are recent quotes from you…

*Nope. *

*Most of the Christians say that if God did not exists they would murder, rape and pillage all day long. *

*That’s what I just said, and it’s been said by Christians and Catholic here. *

People of faith do extreme things all the time.

It seems your belief extends to “most of the christians” on the board, according to your message. You say the majority of us state we would be murders, rapists and pillagers if there was no God. This is highly insulting and inflammatory as well as patently false! I merely pointed out your undercurrent of resentment. Of course, if resorting to calling me a judgmental Christian, a clichéd aspersion, satisfies your dignity then so be it. In reality, it would seem it is you who are judgmental of Christians based on your posts.

Your assertion is not true, but after this reply is posted, I won’t see any more of your posts so go right ahead and make all the assertions about me you like.

Good-day to you then. This seems to be the favoured approach with people you disagree with on this forum. Perhaps you should rethink why you are posting here as you seem to have become what you dispise; a hypocrite.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

lol… That’s her solution to everything I guess. Kind of ironic for someone who pays so much lip-service to the value of evidence and itellectual openness.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb8GPXtdwHBGMMLfNIPCac71R99ZaGRaU7TsRelUntEGVKCuqn

This is what hypocrites usually do. However, we still need to be charitable. Unfortunately, it seems I have come across negatively so I’ll need to be a little more careful with regards to the charity of my posts.