Cool Blogs

[sawscape]

Yes, not all belief systems involve religious ideas and the words we use will mean different things to different people based on there experience with those words. That is why such topics are never easy to discuss, but nevertheless interesting, and it is possible that people can just talk past each other. That may be partly was is going on here.

I must confess that I had not heard of the "brights" before. They are new to me. I guess this comes from living in the (not so much as you might think) fundamentalist USA.

However, try as they might, I don't see the brights description of themselves as actually avoiding atheism (an active denying of God). They say "A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements"
They are not saying that their worldview is free of supernatural elements by ignoring those that exist. They are saying that their worldview is free of supernatural elements (i.e., God--in the all-inclusive sense) because they do not exist.

That is their premise, then. And since the premise is not (cannot be) based on any fact or proven, it is a belief. Since that belief relates to the existence of God (or not), it is a religion. IMHO.

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by sawscape

However, try as they might, I don't see the brights description of themselves as actually avoiding atheism (an active denying of God). They say "A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements"
They are not saying that their worldview is free of supernatural elements by ignoring those that exist. They are saying that their worldview is free of supernatural elements (i.e., God--in the all-inclusive sense) because they do not exist.

That is their premise, then. And since the premise is not (cannot be) based on any fact or proven, it is a belief. Since that belief relates to the existence of God (or not), it is a religion. IMHO.

This is getting interresting!

But I beg to differ. The Brights’ worldview being “free of supernatural elements”, is nothing but the scientific stance, where everything that is not or cannot be observed, is outside the scope of consideration.

The evil spell of science is that in principle, no theory can be proved, only disproved through observations.

So as I see it, The Brights does nothing to actively deny the existence of The Invisible Pink Unicorn (or other gods), they just consider themselves free of considering them, as no traces of supernatural entities can be found. And if some god suddenly pops up and does a miracle, well, then that takes place within the natural world, has to be treated like an object of scientific enquiry, and some god hypothesis can be considered alongside other hypothesises. But as long as you and I fail to see any reason to consider The Invisible Pink Unicorn… well if you insist calling this non-consideration religion per se, feel free to. But I think you’re wrong.



Regards

[MaestroX]

This is getting interresting! :grin:

I concur! A very interesting discussion!

The UK is becoming a increasingly secular society, its a trend that is being echoed throughout Europe.

Do you think this a nesscarily bad or good thing?

The situation is totally differnet across the water where round 80% of the population is christian.

[Ron Ofir]

A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements

Is this a positive defention? Isn't it equivalent to "A bright's worldview doesn't have anything to do with supernatural and mystical elements", which is surely negative. Anyway, this is interesting.

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

Is this a positive defention? Isn't it equivalent to "A bright's worldview doesn't have anything to do with supernatural and mystical elements", which is surely negative. Anyway, this is interesting.

I would say no. I especially like the world “free” as in “freedom”; it suggests a freedom from unnecessary/unreal obstructions, a freedom which in ethics are connected to resposibility. I’ve been in the prison of christianity myself. Now I’m free!

How can one be free from something that doesn’t exist? By ceasing to consider the possibility that it may exist after all! Until the necessary proofs are on the table, of course. If someone could do real magic, it’s very easy to dream up miracles that cannot be faked: Spontaneous regeneration of lost limbs is a prime example: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

No miracles that cannot be faked around? Then why should I seriously consider The Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Consider this statement: “Since I won’t consider the existence of The Invisible Pink Unicorn, I’m actively denying it, and this stance is my religion!” Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Then replace The Invisible Pink Unicorn with God…

I still don’t think that failing to take The Celestial Teapot seriously, constitutes a religion.



Regards

[sawscape]

This is rather interesting. And I think I see a source of the disagreement.

The Brights’ worldview being “free of supernatural elements”, is nothing but the scientific stance, where everything that is not or cannot be observed, is outside the scope of consideration.

I think the problem with the bright's and most non-believers' approach is shown in the above quote. They are taking the scientific way out.

The problem is that science is wholly inappropriate for answering, or evening framing, spiritual questions. I reference a book by Stephen Jay Gould called Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. His premise is that science and religion are non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA). They are orthogonal and, thus, cannot answer the significant questions of the other.

People tend to get into big trouble, or create big problems, when they use either science or religion to "pontificate" about the other. This has mainly worked, negatively, from the religious to science direction (e.g., Galileo). But, as science and scientists become more involved our daily life, it is also more and more common in the science to religious direction. I forget all the examples, but they are laid out in the book.

Science, since it is limited to observations within this universe, it is not capable of answering the larger questions of why or how this universe was even created.

That is why such questions are in the magisteria of religion (a belief system), regardless of how you answer them. And, I would say that all worldviews do have some answers to these questions, even if they use scientific terms or are state them in a way that makes it seem like they are not answering them.

[sawscape]

The UK is becoming a increasingly secular society, its a trend that is being echoed throughout Europe.

Do you think this a nesscarily bad or good thing?

This is also happening in the US, but perhaps more slowly. There are growing enclaves of secularism (take San Francisco, please), including most universities. It may take longer, but the US is moving that way too. I don't think that this is a good thing.

Any society, when there are people involved, will have its problems. But we need to find what works best, not what is ideal. For example, when comparing capitalism to communism or socialism, the latter seem more ideal, but in practice, they are much more terrible. I think the same would be true when comparing most religious versus secular societies.

Western civilization has made two extremely important advancements: democracies (democracies don't fight each other) and separate of church and state. I don't think the intent of the separation was to loose the church side.

The major problem is that we still live in a dangerous world--it is not yet filled with democracies. I'm not sure that a purely secular-progressive society, being hyper-tolerant and appeasing, is prepared to withstand future (current) struggles. And, believe me, the type of forces that were behind WWII and the Cold War still exist in this world.

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by sawscape

The problem is that science is wholly inappropriate for answering, or evening framing, spiritual questions.

This is yet another religious dogma, in my opinion. Yes, I know that Gould invented the NOMA to uphold the long standing ceasefire between science and religion. But it just doesn’t work: As long as the state works agains science and want to teach creationist mythology as science instead of (or alongside with) evolution, it should be evident that the magisteria are ovelapping after all…

Through the centuries, superstition has gradually been replaced by science as our knowledge increases, eventually leaving little or no room for religion.

Even human conciousness—what most people refer to as the human soul—is under scrunity; in his book Consciousness Explained (1991), Daniel C. Dennett bursts the myth that human conciousness is inaccessible to science.

As far as I can see, there are only two questions left for religion:

• “Is there or isn’t there a celestial teapot (or another god), that has absolutely no impact on our daily lives, and does all its alleged miracles in ways that can be lied about or faked, but absolutely none that stands up to any scrunity?”
• “Is there or isn’t there eternal heaven or hell for souls to spend eternity?”

In addition we have all other existential questions like “is our entire universe just a dream in god’s mind”, “do ghosts exist, even if we cannot observe them” etc.

All of those questions are well beyond any testability, cannot be falsified, and is hence outside the realm of science. Some call it spirituality, I’d call it superstition.

Originally Posted by sawscape

Science, since it is limited to observations within this universe, it is not capable of answering the larger questions of why or how this universe was even created.

This is your example of spiritual questions needing religion to answer it. As for how it was created, well that’s pretty much what theorethical cosmology is all about. Science. But why the universe was created: This is exactly the kind of non-testable question that I’m talking about. An interresting question for philosophers.

But if you honestly believe that priests indulging in all kinds of mysticism, telling tall stories about waking people from the dead, allegedly handing out human flesh and blood for ritual consumption—if you honestly believe that these professional demagogues have the intellectual honesty to try to answer these questions, we just disagree.

Originally Posted by sawscape

That is why such questions are in the magisteria of religion (a belief system), regardless of how you answer them.

This is the dividing line, indeed. I concur that philosophical questions exist. But I don’t need religious dogmas as “answers”, and I just have no craving for “believing” anything about The Celestial Teapot.

To rewrite Pink Floyd: “We don’t need no—Superstition/We don’t need no—Thought control/No dark predictions—In the churchrooms/Preacher, leave us kids alone”…



Regards

[MaestroX]

Western civilization has made two extremely important advancements: democracies (democracies don't fight each other) and separate of church and state. I don't think the intent of the separation was to loose the church side.

In my opinion religion should be kept well away from democracy. Its a very bad mix! Take the conflict in Northern Ireland, a good exmple of when religious dominanted decmocracy goes wrong.

The major problem is that we still live in a dangerous world--it is not yet filled with democracies.

Just a quick question, according to statistics only 1/3 of USA citizens have a passport and an even less amount leave their country. Do you regulary visit other countries on holidays etc? I think this is where the "fear of the outside world" comes from. (I'm not saying this is in your case, just a theory )

I'm not sure that a purely secular-progressive society, being hyper-tolerant and appeasing, is prepared to withstand future (current) struggles.

We could turn this on its head and say: "I'm not sure that a purely religious-progressive society, being hyper-intolerant and un-appeasing, is prepared to withstand future (current) struggles". So in my opinion this dosn't quite stand up. We don't know what the world would be like without religion we can only draw conclusions of what has become of religion. Right now, how many of the world's conflicts are sparked by religion or religious intolerance?

I quite agree with Thorolf about the ideas of science to reduce superstition. I found a nice quote by Albert Einstein:

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect.

Just like to say its great we can have a civil discussion about this

[Ron Ofir]

Right now, how many of the world's conflicts are sparked by religion or religious intolerance?

I think the problem is that we can't really say whether it is based on religion, or crazy charismatic (usually rich too) people.