The Egyptians, Norse, and Aztecs off the top of my head had many of the same attributes.

Horus was the Messiah, when Osiris was alive was the uncorrupted earth, etc.

Hmm, I'm not so certain. For instance, none of those have a "consequences of the corruption of humans" element, as far as I can remember. There's apocalyptic eschatology in the Norse idea of Ragnarok, okay, yeah... Hrm. It's a big stretch, but whatever, that's not the point. The point is, none of these things, "science" and "religion" especially, are truly the monolithic forces everyone seems to see them as. They are groups of people, nothing more, all with their own, individual spiritual, physical and emotional needs and desires, and their own methods for fulfilling them. The generalizations are killing me...

I'm not thinking as straight as I should be. I'm going to stop here, come back to this in the morning, hopefully with a fresh perspective.

In the end, I'll just say that in response to Magic Magnum's points, nothing exists in a vaccuum. We cannot erase religion from our history, and we wouldn't want to even if we could. It's a part of us. I agree with de Botton, in that secularism (esp secular education) has not stepped up to the challenge of providing a means for true communal love... And that's sad. We shouldn't need dogma to be moral, it's true, but what we do need is a culture of morality... If that culture has its base in religion, but is more important for its moral contributions than its dogmatic ones, what's the problem in that?

(P.S. morality is much more than "stealing, murdering and raping are bad". It involves values of all sorts, many of which are severely lacking in modern secular society, as de Botton states.)

Magic Magnum said
3. Religion and Spirituality/Something bigger than us

Ok, during my time as a Christian (16-17 years) I never once had a spiritual moment. Nothing that ever reached out to me and made me go "Wow, this is amazing". Blind obedience? Yes, because I was raised to treat it as fact, but nothing that astonished me or influenced my life in a positive way.

But I get those kinds of "Wow" moments constantly when I do something such as watch Carl Sagan's or Neil Tysons Cosmos series. In fact that show is undoubtedly the most spiritual thing I've had in my life.

And anyone whose seen that show knows fully well what I mean, especially when it comes to something bigger than yourself. Living in a world where our own Galaxy alone has more suns than people? Each Galaxy supporting their own planets. And then the Universe as we know it contains more Galaxies than people even? That REALLY get's in perspective how small we are.

But at the same time, when we go back and look at evolution and how we evolved we also realize how special, unique and skilled we are. And our great potential for good or evil. We're not simply taught something like "we're sin and nothing compared to this divine being" removing any self-confidence a person has.

We get the sense of something far bigger than ourselves, but we do so still feeling well and happy with ourselves, rather than depressed and hateful of ourselves.

:) Now, this is an interesting sentiment, and by far (IMO) the best point you make in the OP, Magnum (do you still prefer people to call you Gwazi?).

Spirituality and profound spiritual experience are very personal, and very individual, and we don't need dogma to tell us how to do it, especially considering the unfortunate implications that arise from taking certain passages from certain holy books as entirely literal... However, this doesn't mean that everything that every religious group has ever done or written about is detrimental. There are large numbers of people who do find their spiritual experiences through the structure of an organized religion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

What's needed is a universal, secular moral code, one that builds from, but is not bound to the traditions of the various world faiths. Thus, faith becomes something organic, something that grows within you when you have positive experiences, not something that is drilled into your head from childhood. And, honestly, I believe we're already heading in the right direction. With the amount of information available to people at younger and younger ages, all over the world, people are expanding their ability to question the immoral aspects of their faith, and embrace the moral and just aspects. There will always be hardliners of every sort (just like, as I said, there will always be assholes), and there will always be disagreements, but once the effects of European colonialism are finally purged from the Middle East and Africa, once China truly opens up to the world, once Vladimir Putin either dies, or forgets his Soviet power fantasies, we'll be that much closer, and I believe that all of those things are right around the corner.

:( I could be wrong, though. The point is, being hostile over the fact that religions have produced many good things in the past is unproductive, compared to absorbing the postive and attempting to spark empathy in those around you.

(EDIT: Also, thank you, Mahz, for opening this thread again.)

Imperfectionist said
I think all that first link does is validate what I said in my last post. Nothing is perfect, scientists are human, they do the best they can with what they've got, they can make mistakes, yada yada yada... The only reason this is news is because of the politics of the people on either side of the argument, . Without that politics, they would have no reason to falsify such things. And, it's entirely possible that they did nothing wrong. . These kinds of problems with the system get worked out over time. I'm not saying that there aren't individuals who are scientists, I'm saying that their failings are not the failings of the scientific community as a whole.

What you're describing here is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. That's not a big deal to me, argue how you like.... I only bring it up because the inclination you feel to justify and defend the practice of science is sort of my whole point. That specific emotion is comparable to religious belief. And I don't mean that as an insult -- I'm a religious person, I respect religious beliefs. They're important to me. I just want to be allowed to call it what it is. It means we're really not so different and we have no business demeaning each other over how we choose to think.

Your generalizations, basically, are what I take issue with.

What, specifically, are you taking issue with?

mdk said
What you're describing here is called the That's not a big deal to me, argue how you like.... I only bring it up because the inclination you feel to justify and defend the practice of science is sort of my whole point. is comparable to religious belief. And I don't mean that as an insult -- I'm a religious person, I respect religious beliefs. They're important to me. I just want to be allowed to call it what it is. It means we're really not so different and we have no business demeaning each other over how we choose to think. What, specifically, are you taking issue with?

It's ironic that whenever we (meaning Christianity, I don't know you) point out to the logical consequences of obeying Judeo-Christian principles, we get told about our "No-True Scotsman Fallacy). However, they can have the same or worse attitude with science and scientists in general, and for some reason, they aren't doing it, because it's them doing it.

Honestly, I know very little about logical argument, and I've never even heard of the "True Scotsman fallacy" before now. I was just trying to say that the link you provided to the news story about scientists possibly using unethical peer-review practices to perpetuate the alarmism of global warming didn't strike me as a valid counter-argument. All it said was that sometimes scientists are immoral, and to that my only reply is "Scientists are human, and not infallible. Sometimes they do unethical things to further their own goals. This does not mean that all scientists everywhere are immoral, nor that a majority nor a significant percentage are. All it means is that that team is possibly immoral." Like I said, there is no monolith. They're just people.

mdk said
how dare you challenge the assumption?! It's almost like you're questioning perceptions, and we can't have that in an enlightened scientific community. I brand you a heretic and categorically reject your argument.

mdk said
I'm mocking the 'scientific community' for its flagrantly contradictory attitudes in the debate. Seems I've struck a chord.

These are what I am taking issue with. You see the "scientific community" as a callous and contradictory group (maybe one that manufactures controversy and false beliefs, based on what you said and linked to about global warming), when in fact they are none of those things, nor is there even a single group. There are a vast number of different sciences, each with their own experts and each with their own failings, but I contend that they're all doing the best they can, technology is expanding, and we're on the path towards full understanding of the cosmos.

EDIT: The difference between religious belief and trust in the scientific method is that the former relies on faith, which I have in abundance, and the latter relies on careful reason and understanding of history, which I also have in abundance. I'm a very spiritual person, but my trust that science is on the right path has nothing to do with faith; it has to do with my own logical analysis of the scientific process, something that is very concrete and can be observed.

Sukisho beat me to the punch...but then, she's the one that showed me that a couple days ago.

That said, I do not consider atheism to be spiritually or morally devoid -- I think that argument is often employed by people trying to put it down. It means having to justify one's own existence in some other way besides a religious reckoning.

Beyond that, while someone might note that a practice is derived from a previous religious practice, odds are that religious practice evolved from a very different belief and it just goes on with a repeat of the cycle. (Usually, in such an argument -- I do my trolling and fighting off the Guild if you must know -- you just have to show that it evolved from a different religion and it's over -- guy goes ballistic or silent ) We've been writing on this rock for thousands of years, and people have been borrowing ideas from each other from the getgo. I think it's best to tacitly agree that this is the case with religious vs. secular law and moralities and it avoids the embarrassment of having a bad position get refuted by example. As a guy with a degree in history, I can generally reach back further in a tit for tat argument about the chicken or the egg, but I don't see the point -- I sort of feel like it's like spinning the hamster wheel. It's a fun exercise, but it doesn't get much done.

Religion's inherent redeeming values vs. the inherent redeeming values of atheism or agnosticism? I'm not sure these exist. I tend to look at it through the individual end user. Mother Theresa made her religion a redeeming and uplifting thing that justified a life spent in what amounts to a state of grace. Others have used it for darker purposes. By the same token, you have figures that have rebelled against the dictates and strictures of religion to our great benefit and others that have used atheism as a justification for purges.

I have a hard time simplifying it to, 'this belief is good' and/or 'this belief system is bad' when we're talking about something like Christianity or Islam or Judaism...and even when an entire sect seems to be rotten apples entirely, I tend to consider it a phenomenon of violent rhetoric and a misanthropic philosophy validating the impulses of people that don't function in normal society -- I hold the same view for white supremacists. I look at human nature in askance, not the specific beliefs.

What Atheism, by design, lacks is a counter to the ring of Gyges. The secular reason I have for resisting a turn away from religious to secular morality is exactly that. I can never have a ring of Gyges; God is always watching. Indubitably many people won't become heinous when given total anonymity in real life, but a religious motivation is stronger than a secular motivation when it comes to the ability to do evil and no one would know.

:) Thank you, HeySeuss. I agree with basically all of that, and have much the same way of looking at things.

So Boerd said
What Atheism, by design, lacks is a counter to the ring of Gyges. The secular reason I have for resisting a turn away from religious to secular morality is exactly that. I can never have a ring of Gyges; God is always watching. Indubitably many people won't become heinous when given total anonymity in real life, a religious motivation is stronger than a secular motivation when it comes to the ability to do evil and no one would know.

Which is why we (meaning all people, secular, religious or otherwise) must always be improving ourselves, and why we must embrace empathy. A truly empathic and rational person needs no threat of punishment to avoid evil; she/he must only be able to see the suffering that her/his evil would cause others.

This is why the idea of a Bodhisattva is so interesting, I think. A person who has achieved enlightenment, has achieved the means to end their own suffering... But chooses instead to remain here among the unenlightened, guiding them away from suffering and towards enlightenment themselves. The ultimate empathy.

So Boerd said
What Atheism, by design, lacks is a counter to the ring of Gyges. The secular reason I have for resisting a turn away from religious to secular morality is exactly that. I can never have a ring of Gyges; God is always watching. Indubitably many people won't become heinous when given total anonymity in real life, but a religious motivation is stronger than a secular motivation when it comes to the ability to do evil and no one would know.

I'm not sure the threat of divine retribution is much more of an adequate mechanism for morality than secular mechanisms anyway -- Boko Haram, FLDS and so many others manage to justify their depredations against their fellow human beings and lawyer away any moral objections they might have with the course of action they're taking by figuring that it's okay according to scripture, so don't feel guilty. Hell, in the Jewish community (so this is closer to home for me) there are people that think it's okay to defraud gentiles because it's not prohibited in the Talmud, whereas fraud against fellow Jews is specifically prohibited in the same. White supremacists tend to make a lot out of this, but the reality is that some fanatical communities consider fraud fine, so long as you aren't defrauding within the Tribe. And not a night's loss of sleep is given with the faithful involved.

So I don't see religion as entirely a mechanism of prohibiting certain acts by dint of proclamation -- I see that sword cutting both ways. There's all sorts of exhortations to do shit in certain circumstances and people willing to play word-games and essentially cleave it as finely as they can. Sure, that gets done in secular law, but that's the point -- write away with the best intention, but someone's gonna fuck with you using the loopholes. (Human nature seeks competitive advantage, just adding that so as to sort of square this all with my initial statement. ;) )

PS: Editing mostly for clarification, I'm not yanking the rug out from under people here.

Which is why, again, empathy is the best thing to develop when it comes to morality, not only for the secular but people of all faiths and traditions. I know, it's idealistic, but that doesn't make it less true.

HeySeuss said
I'm not sure the threat of divine retribution is much more of an adequate mechanism for morality than secular mechanisms anyway -- Boko Haram, FLDS and so many others manage to justify their depredations against their fellow human beings and lawyer away any psychological issues they might have with the course of action they're taking by figuring that it okay according to scripture. Hell, in the Jewish community (so this is closer to home for me) there are people that think it's okay to defraud gentiles because it's not prohibited in the Talmud, whereas fraud against fellow Jews is specifically prohibited in the same. White supremacists tend to make a lot out of this, but the reality is that some fanatical communities consider fraud fine, so long as you aren't defrauding within the Tribe. And not a night's loss of sleep is given with the faithful involved.So I don't see religion as entirely a mechanism of prohibiting certain acts by dint of proclamation -- I see that sword cutting both ways. There's all sorts of exhortations to do shit in certain circumstances and people willing to play word-games and essentially cleave it as finely as they can. Sure, that gets done in secular law, but that's the point -- write away with the best intention, but someone's gonna fuck with you using the loopholes.

What I am saying is, take two completely identical hypothetical moral systems, one with divine retribution, one without. I don't see any harm in having divine retribution promised. You lose nothing (people kill for religion and irreligion) and may stand to gain as a society.

But it also creates an opening for people to corrupt that threat of divine retribution... "Don't be gay, or God will throw you down to Hell!", "Don't be dark-skinned, or God will throw you down to Hell!", "Don't disobey the benevolent overlord, for He has been granted his power by God!"

I see nothing gained by that.

EDIT: The problem I'm trying to get across is that it introduces absolutes, and absolutes can be (and have been) corrupted over time, not to mention their being difficult to argue against (thus allowing them to flourish even longer).

Or, by the same token, "My god commands that you must die." Or, "It's okay if I kidnap these girls and sell them into slavery -- the Book authorizes it."

I really don't see the threat of divine retribution as being all that effective as a means of actually stabilizing a society. It's certainly not working that way in Nigeria right now.

That wasn't what I asked. Take the best moral system you can imagine, and attach divine retribution. Is it the worse for it?

Imperfectionist said These are what I am taking issue with. You see the "scientific community" as a callous and contradictory group (maybe one that manufactures controversy and false beliefs, based on what you said and linked to about global warming), when in fact they are none of those things, nor is there even a single group. There are a vast number of different sciences, each with their own experts and each with their own failings, but I contend that they're all doing the best they can, technology is expanding, and we're on the path towards full understanding of the cosmos

I have some experience with peer-reviewed academia (majored in political science) -- it's frequently a dirty business. How it ultimately works is that you need to publish in order to land tenure. To publish you need arguments and data; data is frequently solicited and reused from public record or other studies -- the idea being to take data that already exists and use it to generate a job, via a supportable thesis. The gatekeepers are the reputable journals, which are largely comprised of peers (thus 'peer-reviewed') who ultimately are trying to accomplish the same goal of tenure themselves -- using the same practices to obtain and retask data. This is the actual system that exists, not the ideal we like to imagine.... it's full of conflicting interests and exploitative methodology. The tyranny is the consensus.... you picture a clean room with beakers and lab coats, I picture an angry mob, the actual truth is closer to the middle than either of us would like to believe. It's not what you think it should be.

That sounds unfair, doesn't it? And that's sort of my point. It's unfair to talk about what's wrong with our way of doing science. That's a very bad way to approach things. I want to do away with this implicit reverence we have for the field. Scientists are people. Just people. Only people. We seem to insist on treating them as something more than that.

So I have to pretend that it's true; there's a big father in the sky enforcing the law in order to answer the question?

No thanks. I'm going to point out that absent the certainty that there is divine retribution, placing faith in it as a means of stabilizing society is definitely like sailing in a leaky vessel.

I suppose if you're arguing that it's cool to gull people into believing there is a great father in the sky thundering down on wrongdoers for political purposes, I certainly agree -- though I find the practice dishonest. Of course, I'm also not in politics. And I'll also hasten to point out that there are other lies a politician can tell to reassure his flock of sheeple.

:/ I feel like we've been making the same points at each other for a while, now, mdk. You are saying "science isn't ideal!" and I'm saying "there is no monolith of science! They're just fallible people!" Yeah, I believe we are in agreement. There are problems inherent in the system, based on simple economics and human nature. I simply choose to believe that such things are temporary, and we are moving towards a less flawed system...

EDIT: I should mention, though, that these economic problems are quite similar to the political problems we discussed earlier, and have no bearing on whether the act of experimenting to draw conclusions on things is bad... It's still not.

So Boerd said
That wasn't what I asked. Take the best moral system you can imagine, and attach divine retribution. Is it the worse for it?

Yes.

Saying "is it the worse for it right now?" is shortsighted. Is it worse over time, yes, because of what I've already said about absolutes and corruption.

Imperfectionist said
:/ I feel like we've been making the same points at each other for a while, now, mdk. You are saying "science isn't ideal!" and I'm saying "there is no monolith of science! They're just fallible people!" Yeah, I believe we are in agreement. There are problems inherent in the system, based on simple economics and human nature. I simply choose to believe that such things are temporary, and we are moving towards a less flawed system...

Where we differ is, you're dismissing these shortcomings on account of the ultimate ideal; while I'm dismissing the ultimate ideal on account of the shortcomings. I don't think we're 'on a path towards full understanding of the cosmos,' not in the least.

Ironically my conclusion is the one based on evidence, and yours the one based on faith.