Have you ever read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard address? (found here...http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html)

He doesn't delve into the legitimacy of religion, but rather looks at its importance in society.

 

so you are implieing that, religion also has a good side, and thus should stay forever a part of society?
We could invent devices and social events similar to reliegions with similar upsides but without there negetive effect on science issues and there bloody background.

Do you recall the pope saying condoms are a bad thing in Afrika recently? How Positive do you think that effects society? Exectly! HIV Positive.

 

If you'd read the address I linked to, you'd know that the very core of what religion is -- belief in some or many deities who will ultimately decide our fate -- is what makes it important to society. It is that notion that drives people to do the horrible things that religion is known for, but it is also that belief that drives some kindness and self improvement. Mostly, though, it just keeps people from being materialistic hedonists who are afraid to stand up against anything that goes against their grain.

 

I dont get it, i read the article and its not about religion...

I just said above, that we could invent a device similer to modern religions, including the "belief in some or many deities who will ultimately decide our fate". But we could make one much better and lofical then the ones which exist. You know a god who promotes healthy eating, envirmentalism, and scientific research etc... and you cannot argue with the vast amount of negative effect current religions have.

 

What makes you think that this lofical religion of yours won't have any downsides?

If you really think about it, science and religion are fairly similar when it comes to the unknown. Where science doesn't have a definitive, nigh irrefutable answer, speculation reigns. Scientists pursue the answer, but in its absence, malicious individuals are free to manipulate things as they please. Unfortunately, religion deals wholly in the unknown so there is a great deal more room to be malicious, but the tenets of your religion are constantly steeped in speculation.

What foods are healthy? Is organic worth the cost?

What level of environmentalism is necessary? Should we strip down and run into the jungles or simply recycle our plastics?

What ethical boundaries should be imposed on science (i.e., cloning; abortion)?

In fact, one could argue that these issues have already bred much more division in modern societies than even religion does -- what do you think will happen when people think these issues are backed by divine mandates?

 

A good example for unknown in science is the behavior of particles in high density situations. Quantum mechanics fails to comprehend Gravity in its boundaries and without it high density situations cannot be modeled. Newtonian laws of Physics on the other hand totally lack the Uncertainty Principle.
Still in this unknown, scientists follow clear cut routes of rational thinking and apply critical reviews of their theories.
Theoretical views have been developed for the above mentioned case, such as the string theory. Theory vs. Religion:
-Theory does not pretend to be the only truth, it doesn’t even propose to be accurate at all, scientists just hope to find a new way of thinking about difficult subjects with the help of it.
-Theory is always the next step on the line of proven facts. We know gravity exists and we have Laws for it. We know quantum mechanics is accurate on particle level. All scientists did was ask the question “what happens if we have huge amounts of mass in a small amount of area?” And instead of just making up things, they try to explain it by laws of other states of Mass (High Mass in a large area-Newton, or low mass in small area-quantum).
-Science is logical speculation, yes, with a very critical eye on it, and all members of the club very self aware of all the answers it lacks to give. Where religion (all religions.) simply pretend to have the full answers, without any proof, and actual facts proving most of them wrong.
Religion is NOT like science.

Foods are healthy when they are healthy. There are stuff we are supposed to eat, and stuff we are not. Not a lot of ways around this. Pesticides, food coloring, artificial tastes, preservatives, and TOXINS are not in the group of “should be eaten”! Other stuff are only bad if you eat too much of them, such as fat, oils, sugar, caffeine. Nothing will change this. The fact that today you cannot get food that is totally free of the “do not eat!” group means the best you can do is to struggle to keep the poisons you eat at a minimum. And then call it healthy... go figure. Anyways healthy eating is not a myth. It does exist and has clear cut rules of what the daily meal should consist of. Even if you buy everything in the supermarket, vegetables and fruits are better than pork.

With the term “environmentalism”, I meant the epic struggle of men to preserve the environment in a state that allows human life on the planet. A goal Americans don’t seem to find too important. This point is very vague, as we don’t exactly know how much the planet can take of us. It might already be a “mu” point as we might have passed the point of no return and don’t even have the chance to survive, but maybe with a few changes Earth will just shake of its bruises and live on happily ever after. There is a lot of room for speculation here. Still, energy saving, recycling and minimizing CO2 exhaustion are clear win-win enterprises with no downsides.

Ethical boundaries only exist as long as you think in a way where you have a right to tell other people what to do. Abortion is not science nor is banning it. Overpopulation is the leading cause for all Environmental problems, so I’m all for it. But it’s not a religion vs. science question.

Cloning and stem cell research do not actually raise the questions of being right or wrong. The cure for diseases is a fundamental need of our race. The death of a few human cells sacrificed for the greater good, for the preventing of pain and suffering in the living, could only be thought as bad by people who are too full of them self’s. I recommend them to go to a cancer ward and look in the people’s eye there, and tell them that even looking for a cure is sadly unethical.
What is the sacrifice of ethics compared to the suffering of millions of ill, and the pain of losing them for their relatives?

And all this has nothing to do with what I said earlier. That all the positive effects of religion. (the very few) could be reproduced by simple mechanisms which do not reproduce the negative effects. A simple undeniable truth, spawning debate about everything except itself.

 

For one, you completely missed my point. The pursuit of scientific understanding by scientists is purely civil, just as the pursuit of religion and spirituality are purely civil when practiced by good people. It is the penis wrinkles like Al Gore or those Christians protesting gay soldiers who cause division, and they exist in great numbers in both religious and scientific circles -- and are arguably much more damaging in scientific circles.

For another, you're comically oversimplifying the situations I put forth; with your train of thought, I could say religion is simple and clear cut: the pursuit of Heaven by leading a good life on Earth.

That statement contains the same gaping logical omissions that yours do.

Healthy is healthy. That is correct, but what are the correct macronutrient requirements of people (even in general)? Micronutrients? Ask two different experts and you'll get two different answers.

Environmentalism is the pursuit of planetary equilibrium? Obviously the eco-terrorists will interpret this differently than the suburbanite.

And so on and so forth in that fashion (for the sake of length). It is in in areas of the unknown -- where malicious individuals manipulate public opinion -- that science and religion are identical.

The main thing to note, though, is that religion deserves much more credit than anti-theists give it. While it was and continues to be the vehicle for major social setbacks, it is also the vehicle for a sustained, civil society, if properly tempered with a healthy dose of scientific understanding.

 

Yeah, i too feel that i ranted on too long, and kinda got off the main track. Anyways i agree with you in most points you made in your last entry. It was kinda fun.