Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Neanderthaland]

Well, I mean, is there a profound metaphor in there? What is it? Where is it?

There are profound parts of the Bible. I really like Philippians 4:8. But Genesis really just sounds like primitive mythology.

I'm not going to catechize you right now.

You can always ask the CDT if you really want to know about Genesis interpretations. I'm sure they would be very nice so long as you're there in good faith.

Perhaps I'm being too gentle.

Saying, "it's not literal" in response to people pointing out that the story is kind of barbaric, doesn't make it less barbaric. And taking it metaphorically produces no insights that counter it's barbarism. There's nothing there that is profound or interesting. It's a bad story.



Also, I've been on the Christian thread. They are the opposite of nice. See: how they treat each other.

[Bombadil]

Also, I've been on the Christian thread. They are the opposite of nice. See: how they treat each other.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not going to catechize you right now.

You can always ask the CDT if you really want to know about Genesis interpretations. I'm sure they would be very nice so long as you're there in good faith.

Perhaps I'm being too gentle.

Saying, "it's not literal" in response to people pointing out that the story is kind of barbaric, doesn't make it less barbaric. And taking it metaphorically produces no insights that counter it's barbarism. There's nothing there that is profound or interesting. It's a bad story.



Also, I've been on the Christian thread. They are the opposite of nice. See: how they treat each other.

A lot of it is a show really. We like to play rivalries but none of us actually hate each other. It's kind of like the RWDT in that way.

Tars actually does know a lot more about Genesis interpretation than I do, I think he's writing some sort of paper on it. He would actually serve your questions a lot better than I would.

And besides Genesis interpretation isn't the topic.

[Mirjt]

By Karl Marx, who also thought paid labor was slavery and private property as a concept was inherently evil.

The following comment is not relevent to if science and religion are compatible, it is a tangent to a tangent. Please don't let it derail the conversation.

I would like to say that in this case I agree with Karl Marx. Originally all land and resources and property was commonly owned, meaning it was owned by no one and available to everyone. When someone came around and drew lines on the ground and on a map and said this is exclusively mine. That is private property and I am against it (though I may or may not be willing to compromise with its existence if certain conditions are met and immutable).

Here's an example of what that may look like to me. That apple orchard that I have not and cannot care for on my own, that produces more apples than I need, want, or could use, that everyone used to have access to, is all mine because I have a paper that says it is, and I will withhold the apples you need for food unless you work for me directly picking the apples of which I will give you some of what you picked, or indirectly by producing goods, services, or currency to trade with me. You respect my claim to this land because I have distorted religious beliefs to make my claim respected by the divine or otherwise indoctrinated people and I have bribed some people with some of the apples I just stole from the common ownership to use force (usually in the form of the state, or police, or military) to protect my claim to this private property. I then trade with others whom have claimed the land and resources, and pass it down over the generations.

Same with wage labor being wage slavery. Capitialists who because of their claim over private property, such as the house you live in (either by banking or by landlording), such as the factory that the workers need to make things, and so on; is allowed to say you must work for me, I am literally buying your life (renting a slave as opposed to buying and owning one) and that time I bought is mine and not yours, I am requiring you to produce things for me and then when I see it for profit I will return a small portion of the value you produced back to you (such as a factory worker whom makes $100 worth of shirts in an hour but only gets paid $8 and hour), just like how slaves had some of the value they produced returned to them in the form of food to keep them alive. If someone tries to get away without working for an autocratic boss, overwhelming most of the time, they will be sentence to die of hunger or homelessness or illness, or to live in destitution or other wretched conditions.

Note: I see a difference between private property and personal property. Private property are the things that you hold to make profit, while personal property are the things you personally possess and use. For example a factory that is privately owned is private property, a sweater that you personally use is personal property; a house can be either, for a landlord that does not live in the house it is private property, for the people who live in that house it is personal property.

[Salus Maior]

By Karl Marx, who also thought paid labor was slavery and private property as a concept was inherently evil.

The following comment is not relevent to if science and religion are compatible, it is a tangent to a tangent. Please don't let it derail the conversation.

No one else was commenting on it until you did just now.

[Tarmac Riders]

definitely not. no need to elaborate

[Mirjt]

The following comment is not relevent to if science and religion are compatible, it is a tangent to a tangent. Please don't let it derail the conversation.

No one else was commenting on it until you did just now.

I debated if I should comment on it or not. I decided to leave a disclaimer, and give my view on that tangent to a tangent. I am still worried it may derail the conversation, so I may delete it.

[Bombadil]

No one else was commenting on it until you did just now.

I debated if I should comment on it or not. I decided to leave a disclaimer, and give my view on that tangent to a tangent. I am still worried it may derail the conversation, so I may delete it.

Just spoiler it like I did a page or two back when I, myself, commented on it.

Then add an unspoiled relevant sentence to make it all look legit.

[Upper Nan]

I was being nice, religion is sucking down on an addictive cigarette to calm your anxiety, or injecting heroin to obliviate yourself from reality.. there's a reason it's called the opiate of the masses.

People will happily kill for the above.

By Karl Marx, who also thought paid labor was slavery and private property as a concept was inherently evil.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Sure, fundamentalist religion is a bit like that. But what about victims? Such as the 21 Coptic martyrs kidnapped by ISIS and refused conversion, and subsequently were beheaded with knives on video? Are they equals to crack addicts in your eyes too? What about the Buddhist monk protester in South Vietnam, who burned himself alive in protest of the government's harsh persecution of Buddhists, and created a mass movement for reform? Guess his death was something pitiable, like a heroin addict dying in the streets.

Lot of good that "reform movement" did them. The Buddhist protests contributed to the overthrow of Diem, which itself led indirectly to the fall of Saigon and the RVN to communists. Diem was the best leader the South could've had at the time, which even the North's government recognized. His overthrow led to massive instability and constant coups (plus, just the lost of a hardline anti-communist leader in an area that actually needed one for once), and a huge swing of support towards the Viet Cong as an alternative to the failing state apparatus. Obviously the protesters didn't know that would happen, but let's be careful about praising movements that created more problems than they solved.

And, yes, I'd say person immolating themselves in the street is pretty damn pitiable, even if their death ultimately accomplishes more than a heroin addict overdosing. We should generally avoid celebrating death.

[Salus Maior]

By Karl Marx, who also thought paid labor was slavery and private property as a concept was inherently evil.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Sure, fundamentalist religion is a bit like that. But what about victims? Such as the 21 Coptic martyrs kidnapped by ISIS and refused conversion, and subsequently were beheaded with knives on video? Are they equals to crack addicts in your eyes too? What about the Buddhist monk protester in South Vietnam, who burned himself alive in protest of the government's harsh persecution of Buddhists, and created a mass movement for reform? Guess his death was something pitiable, like a heroin addict dying in the streets.

Lot of good that "reform movement" did them. The Buddhist protests contributed to the overthrow of Diem, which itself led indirectly to the fall of Saigon and the RVN to communists. Diem was the best leader the South could've had at the time, which even the North's government recognized. His overthrow led to massive instability and constant coups (plus, just the lost of a hardline anti-communist leader in an area that actually needed one for once), and a huge swing of support towards the Viet Cong as an alternative to the failing state apparatus. Obviously the protesters didn't know that would happen, but let's be careful about praising movements that created more problems than they solved.

And, yes, I'd say person immolating themselves in the street is pretty damn pitiable, even if their death ultimately accomplishes more than a heroin addict overdosing. We should generally avoid celebrating death.

Then I suggest it was a bad move for Diem to persecute the Buddhists, who are the majority religion in Vietnam.

[Upper Nan]

Obviously the story isn't true.

But take it as metaphor, what's so great about the metaphor? It mostly gets across that God is capricious, and kind of a diva.

Adam and Eve jumping at the chance of "being like God" despite having literally everything in the garden isn't diva behavior?

I mean, is having knowledge of good and evil "being like God?" I'm pretty sure there are other things that make Yahweh "the God" other than that, otherwise he's a pretty shite god. I get that it's a metaphor, but it's a really weak one.

I doubt we're going to come to any agreement when it comes to interpretation, and I doubt anyone here is really going to get anywhere with continued discussion.

Then why even engage at all? If this is actually your attitude, then it says way more about you than it does about anyone else here.

[Upper Nan]

I'm not going to catechize you right now.

You can always ask the CDT if you really want to know about Genesis interpretations. I'm sure they would be very nice so long as you're there in good faith.

Perhaps I'm being too gentle.

Saying, "it's not literal" in response to people pointing out that the story is kind of barbaric, doesn't make it less barbaric. And taking it metaphorically produces no insights that counter it's barbarism. There's nothing there that is profound or interesting. It's a bad story.



Also, I've been on the Christian thread. They are the opposite of nice. See: how they treat each other.

Yeah, the problem with saying, "They would be nice as long as you're acting in good faith," is that they basically treat any challenging question as being in bad faith. So much to the point where there's basically no reason posting there unless you don't want to act in good faith.

[Upper Nan]

Which is completely irrelevant.


Lot of good that "reform movement" did them. The Buddhist protests contributed to the overthrow of Diem, which itself led indirectly to the fall of Saigon and the RVN to communists. Diem was the best leader the South could've had at the time, which even the North's government recognized. His overthrow led to massive instability and constant coups (plus, just the lost of a hardline anti-communist leader in an area that actually needed one for once), and a huge swing of support towards the Viet Cong as an alternative to the failing state apparatus. Obviously the protesters didn't know that would happen, but let's be careful about praising movements that created more problems than they solved.

And, yes, I'd say person immolating themselves in the street is pretty damn pitiable, even if their death ultimately accomplishes more than a heroin addict overdosing. We should generally avoid celebrating death.

Then I suggest it was a bad move for Diem to persecute the Buddhists, who are the majority religion in Vietnam.

No disagreement there. Though, it should be noted that Diem did so because he was a devout Catholic (Catholicism being more prominent in the South than the North) and wanted Buddhists to convert to Catholicism. I figured you'd probably be sympathetic to his desire if not his methods, but now I'm getting off topic.

[Jedi Council]

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

This would be a reasonable statement if we lived in the 12th century.

But having seen the amount of progress science has made at explaining our world, and the commensurate retreat of faith based religion, it would be foolish to proceed with this mindset.

We do not know everything, as you say. But rather than attribute what we do not know to a deity, why not just say we have not figured it out yet? Science has progressed so far, whose to say it will not continue to encroach upon the claims of religion and faith? Things we do not understand does not excuse faith, or religion. With that, you just fall into the God of the Gaps theory.

Faith is almost invariable a bad idea. The reason religion and the like is so dangerous is because they make people believe things that are without, or contrary to, evidence and fact. Where else so we value such a concept? Faith is a logical fallacy that we would be far better without.

[Jedi Council]

Truth be told one can look at the 3 main fields of higher thought as Religion, Philosophy, and Science. A far more interesting look at it in a broad sense is that it could be considered as the scientific formula at work with the hypothesis (Religion), the steps taken forward to test or experiment with (Philosophy), and finally the results/failures/further questions one ends with (Science). Religions are formed to give answers to the world while also seeking to help it in its own fashion and practices. Philosophy attempts to understand the world through thought, observation, and deep contemplation of nature let alone man's nature. Science attempts to put everything in a testable, constant fact as it studies the machinations of life.

With that in mind I often look at them as not incompatible, but simply different processes to the same equation.

It just so happens that one of those sources has been highly accurate, and one is totally bogus.

[Mirjt]

Perhaps I'm being too gentle.

Saying, "it's not literal" in response to people pointing out that the story is kind of barbaric, doesn't make it less barbaric. And taking it metaphorically produces no insights that counter it's barbarism. There's nothing there that is profound or interesting. It's a bad story.



Also, I've been on the Christian thread. They are the opposite of nice. See: how they treat each other.

Yeah, the problem with saying, "They would be nice as long as you're acting in good faith," is that they basically treat any challenging question as being in bad faith. So much to the point where there's basically no reason posting there unless you don't want to act in good faith.

If that is their behavior, then they are not acting very Christ-like or enlightened. There are many different sects of Christianity, whom may disagree on a number of things, with complex histories. How can they dictate they everyone must think the same way? Would ideas such as Christian Universalism or Gnostic Christianity or Mormonism or Progressive Christianity or a Rejection of Substitutionary Atonement Theology or Unitariansism or Theistic Evolution or a million other Christian ideas be welcomed or called heresy? Is their faith so weak that it cannot stand up to scrutiny and questioning and interogation? Do they think that God and Jesus wanted us to be ignorant, dogmatic, unthinking, obedient lemmings? What about the interfaith coexistence (something that matters to me, my parents had an interfaith marriage between Unorthodox Judaism and Evangelical Christianity)? Jesus told us to love our neighbors, not judge their beliefs. What about all you can learn from other beliefs systems both religious and non-religious? What about accepting that we can't know everything? If they won't respect other people's ideas and beliefs, why should other people respect theirs?

[Hanafuridake]

People don't die for chocolate chip cookies or ice cream, people often do for their faith.

I'm not telling you to live your life a certain way. I don't care what you do. But simplifying the concept of faith to a mere comfort completely disregards the lengths people go to in order to protect their faith, defying government oppression and terrorist threats in order to practice and stay true to it. If someone stuck an AK to your head and told you to swear off cookies and ice cream forever, nobody would care enough to risk getting a bullet in the head over it.

It's pure arrogance to even suggest that.

I was being nice, religion is sucking down on an addictive cigarette to calm your anxiety, or injecting heroin to obliviate yourself from reality.. there's a reason it's called the opiate of the masses.

People will happily kill for the above.

Monks who help during natural disasters are comparable to drug dealers?

[Bombadil]

I was being nice, religion is sucking down on an addictive cigarette to calm your anxiety, or injecting heroin to obliviate yourself from reality.. there's a reason it's called the opiate of the masses.

People will happily kill for the above.

Monks who help during natural disasters are comparable to drug dealers?

No more than anyone who helps out during natural disasters though god knows I'd prefer to see someone from the medical community coming my way.

You should be ashamed of such a weak comment. Go sit in the corner and think about what you just did.

[Jedi Council]

I was being nice, religion is sucking down on an addictive cigarette to calm your anxiety, or injecting heroin to obliviate yourself from reality.. there's a reason it's called the opiate of the masses.

People will happily kill for the above.

Monks who help during natural disasters are comparable to drug dealers?

Bombadil said heroin addicts, not drug dealers.

In any case, his point was not that religious people are incapable of doing good, but that the overall idea of religion is often used as a comfort blanket when in reality it does far more harm than good.

[Hanafuridake]

No more than anyone who helps out during natural disasters though god knows I'd prefer to see someone from the medical community coming my way.

Doing things such as establishing welfare centers and distributing basic resources for survival are usually not done by medical communities.

It is clear that as one of the most important stage of the disaster management cycle, providing emergency relief was the key role of Buddhist monks subjected to the study. Most of the monks had involved in relief services such as providing cooked food, water, cloths, medicine, sanitation as well as establishing welfare centers in their temples for the victims. It was interesting to see that a significant number of monks interviewed particularly in the Eastern provinces had engaged in relief services for both tsunami and war affected displaced people. The monks who were involved in emergency relief services for Muslims, Hindu Tamils, and Christians those who had became victims of tsunami and war, irrespective of religious or ethnic affiliations were immensely appreciated.

You should be ashamed of such a weak comment. Go sit in the corner and think about what you just did.

It was a completely valid comment, you derided religion as harmful like drugs and I provided examples of religion mobilizing people to save lives.

[Bombadil]

No more than anyone who helps out during natural disasters though god knows I'd prefer to see someone from the medical community coming my way.

Doing things such as establishing welfare centers and distributing basic resources for survival are usually not done by medical communities.

It is clear that as one of the most important stage of the disaster management cycle, providing emergency relief was the key role of Buddhist monks subjected to the study. Most of the monks had involved in relief services such as providing cooked food, water, cloths, medicine, sanitation as well as establishing welfare centers in their temples for the victims. It was interesting to see that a significant number of monks interviewed particularly in the Eastern provinces had engaged in relief services for both tsunami and war affected displaced people. The monks who were involved in emergency relief services for Muslims, Hindu Tamils, and Christians those who had became victims of tsunami and war, irrespective of religious or ethnic affiliations were immensely appreciated.

You should be ashamed of such a weak comment. Go sit in the corner and think about what you just did.

It was a completely valid comment, you derided religion as harmful like drugs and I provided examples of religion mobilizing people to save lives.

Wow, you were in a hole and thought 'maybe it's quicker to get out by digging down.

Red Cross, Medicine Sans Frontieres..

[Jedi Council]

No more than anyone who helps out during natural disasters though god knows I'd prefer to see someone from the medical community coming my way.

Doing things such as establishing welfare centers and distributing basic resources for survival are usually not done by medical communities.

It is clear that as one of the most important stage of the disaster management cycle, providing emergency relief was the key role of Buddhist monks subjected to the study. Most of the monks had involved in relief services such as providing cooked food, water, cloths, medicine, sanitation as well as establishing welfare centers in their temples for the victims. It was interesting to see that a significant number of monks interviewed particularly in the Eastern provinces had engaged in relief services for both tsunami and war affected displaced people. The monks who were involved in emergency relief services for Muslims, Hindu Tamils, and Christians those who had became victims of tsunami and war, irrespective of religious or ethnic affiliations were immensely appreciated.

You should be ashamed of such a weak comment. Go sit in the corner and think about what you just did.

It was a completely valid comment, you derided religion as harmful like drugs and I provided examples of religion mobilizing people to save lives.

There are alot of medical organizations that not only deliver great care and assist during disasters, but they do not proselytize while they do it, which, frankly, is an added benefit.

Of course there are a few instances where religious people have done good things. That does not mean, however, that religion or faith are positive forces.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The idea that religion isn't a positive force is one of the most obnoxious fedora tipping atheist positions one could take. It broadcasts an extreme ignorance of human history, ffs agriculture and religion are the two biggest things that created civilization as we know it.

[Jedi Council]

The idea that religion isn't a positive force is one of the most obnoxious fedora tipping atheist positions one could take. It broadcasts an extreme ignorance of human history, ffs agriculture and religion are the two biggest things that created civilization as we know it.

Of course certain religions have had utility in the past, but let's not pretend that in the 21st century they are either useful or a force for good.

[Nakena]

The idea that religion isn't a positive force is one of the most obnoxious fedora tipping atheist positions one could take.

I blame that one religion that comes in three variants. Specifically the later two ones.

The Fedoras are obviously a product of that environment. And they cannot stand me either.

It broadcasts an extreme ignorance of human history, ffs agriculture and religion are the two biggest things that created civilization as we know it.

I am not sure if agriculture was the right way anon, altough it was undoubtly necessary for practical reasons.