[Andorion]

Also Buddha didn't really preach a religion in the sense we understand religion. The decision to worship him was taken by Mahayana Buddhists after his death

[D'rek]

Andorion, on 06 May 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:

@D'rek, your point about God being essentially unprovable, while good, raises certain issues.

Religion is not really a personal issue yet. Across the globe various entities, from community groups to states frame policy on basis of religion. Now I have no problem whatsoever with people believing and worshipping whatever they like. But when religion is sought to be imposed, that's when the problem starts. In India it is used to justify the caste system, Where whole groups of people are treated as inferior and this is done with so-called divine sanction. They are denied access to basic resources and are continuous victims of violence. In theocratic states, people are deprived of basic rights in the name of religion. Naturally such situations call for extensive criticisms of the oppressive groups and the religious ideology they profess. Now such criticism usually takes two forms, the first being the argument that this is a distortion of the original religion, while others question the legitimacy of the religion itself. Now in the face of this criticism, if a religion can simply claim that it's rented and central authority figure are matters of father, hence beyond proof, justification or criticism, then it dilutes accountability seriously

Edit: simply consider your own comments on Catholic views on women. How would you like to live in a situation.Where such values were possess all criticism was answered with the " take it on faith" comment

Yup. Just like various philosophies, political systems, ethics, social movements, etc, religion is something that can be believed and practiced by a single person with no care for what anyone else thinks/believes/does, or it can be turned into an ideology and at the extreme opposite end forcibly imposed upon others.

Should people impose their religion upon others? I do not believe so, just like I don't think capitalism should be forced upon others, nor should anyone be forced to follow moral particularism or believe in certain parenting methodologies. Even when we prevent others from following certain ideologies (ie we, as a society, make illegal an act which harms others - those whose ideologies require that act are now prevented from following it) we still should not force anyone to choose a particular ideology to follow amongst all of those which are still permissible within our social framework.

Of course, "should" is a great word that in the end has little value to the real world on such a grand scale. In history and today we have all manner of terrible things that are done with religion or other ideological foundations used as a justification. Should we criticize the people and organizations who perform such atrocities? Yes! Should we criticize that they believe in doing harmful things? Absolutely!

Should we lump in everyone who falls under the vague umbrella term of their beliefs and criticize them as one big homogenous group? I would say no. I think it is unfair to act as if people do not have the autonomy to pick and choose the individual aspects of their religion. Even though the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant Church, etc exist, it doesn't mean every Protestant or Catholic has even the same religious education as the Pope or Archbishop, let alone chooses to follow the very same beliefs as them.

Politicians, the media and debatists may describe religions as being monolithic, but we all know there is tons of variety even in what is codified for the "same" religion, let alone all the splinter sects and regional variations. At the end of the day, it is precisely because those deities and miracles are unprovable that the ultimate responsibility lies upon each person individually. The same can be said for a room full of economists with differing opinions on how much government control defines whether an economic system constitutes capitalism, socialism or something else - there is no completely established definition that all its ideological adherents are expected to agree upon, demonstrably mandated by some higher authority. Whether you call it Catholicism, Hinduism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, Tengrii, Shinto, Marxism, Nihilism, Feminism, Socialism, Communism, Patriotism... whatever you call your particular intangible beliefs, you chose to believe in those things and you can make the choice to change those beliefs, too, in a big way or a small way. You can also label those beliefs however you want. So as much as these beliefs may play into a larger organization or ideology, it is still you and only you who is responsible for your beliefs and the consequences which come out of them.




(Well, if you're an adult anyways. Let's not get into brainwashed kids just yet.)

[Grief]

D, on 06 May 2015 - 09:52 PM, said:

Yup. Just like various philosophies, political systems, ethics, social movements, etc, religion is something that can be believed and practiced by a single person with no care for what anyone else thinks/believes/does, or it can be turned into an ideology and at the extreme opposite end forcibly imposed upon others.

Should people impose their religion upon others? I do not believe so, just like I don't think capitalism should be forced upon others, nor should anyone be forced to follow moral particularism or believe in certain parenting methodologies. Even when we prevent others from following certain ideologies (ie we, as a society, make illegal an act which harms others - those whose ideologies require that act are now prevented from following it) we still should not force anyone to choose a particular ideology to follow amongst all of those which are still permissible within our social framework.

Of course, "should" is a great word that in the end has little value to the real world on such a grand scale. In history and today we have all manner of terrible things that are done with religion or other ideological foundations used as a justification. Should we criticize the people and organizations who perform such atrocities? Yes! Should we criticize that they believe in doing harmful things? Absolutely!

Should we lump in everyone who falls under the vague umbrella term of their beliefs and criticize them as one big homogenous group? I would say no. I think it is unfair to act as if people do not have the autonomy to pick and choose the individual aspects of their religion. Even though the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant Church, etc exist, it doesn't mean every Protestant or Catholic has even the same religious education as the Pope or Archbishop, let alone chooses to follow the very same beliefs as them.

This to me raises a slightly tangential issue regarding religion.

Quite commonly people will highlight the abuses of various religious institutions throughout history and point out that these institutions often don't seem to live up to the moral standard their religion sets out.

Likewise, people (rightly) raise issues regarding the separation of religious instituions from personal beliefs.

So, to what degree are individuals implicated in the actions of instituions? I'm not meaning the people actually making the decisions within the instituions, that case seems more straightforward. I'm meaning, people who are generally religious. Are they implicated at all? What about in cases where it's not an institution acting but an individual?

For example, let's say that someone destroys an artwork and states that this was for religious reasons. My point isn't that religion is here "to blame" for causing his (after all, many religious people will -- and do -- condemn such actions, and most religious people don't take such actions). However, the fact that so much of the world believes religion to be important surely has some effect on how the action is interpretted? How important is this widespread religious belief; and what implication might it have for an individual? For example, the condemnations available to the religious and non-religious individual are presumably different. A non-religious person might say "to take an action (including this action) in the name of religion is absurd", while I'm not sure that this is such an option (or at least, a likely option) for the religious individual. Instead, the condemnation seems more likely to be "I disagree with the interpretation of religion that led to this action", that is, "to take this particular action in the name of religion is wrong". It seems to me that seeing something as important tacitly accepts it as a valid motivation for action (to some extent). So does seeing religion as important tacitly accept it as a valid motivation for action, which then makes things a question of where you draw the line, and which actions are acceptable?

My point then is, at what point might we see religious belief as "neutral" in this scenario? If belief is kept totally private, then presumably it doesn't tacitly support anything whatsoever. Is public belief a neutral position? A religious person can obviously condemn the action, and that is going to outweigh and overrule any tacit support religious belief they individually contribute by being religious (if we accept that this support exists at all). What about the religious person that doesn't make a condemnation? Is that neutral, or does it slightly support the action, if the person is contibuting to the idea that religion is important and therefore a valid motivation for certain actions, without specifying which actions those are? Does the religious person then to some degree have an obligation to make his stance clear, to actively issue condemnations of religious actions he disagrees with, if his faith is public? Maybe people would disagree that the person is tacitly contributing to the idea that religion is a valid motivation for actions; or perhaps they would disagree that this tacitly supports all actions taken in the name of religion to any extent (even if the person doesn't actively make their stance clear). We could also argue that the position is neutral (or positive) by arguing that it tacitly supports positive actions in the name of religion; this might just boil down to whether one thinks religious institutions have been generally a force for good or not, which is a discussion that generally I find a bit unknowable really (we don't have a non-religious parallel history for comparison, and it seems too majorly entwined with the past for accurate counterfactual history), and one that I'd rather not have on the board, since on the internet this seems to mostly devolve into one side shouting about the crusades and the other side shouting about bach while both sides point out that these -- or similar, or better, or worse -- things may or may not have happened minus religion. Anyhow, I don't have a very certain view on this idea about the tacit implications of religion and what they mean for individuals, but it's a consideration I find interesting.

[Grief]

Powder, on 06 May 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

Third, wars do not discredit religion, they discredit humanity. Stalin's religion? Mao's? Pol Pot? Hitler? What has this post-religious enlightenment bought us other than death and destruction on an unprecedented scale? (Someone with sick quotefu find me this one) I think SE via Bugg said it best, What if I told you that you(humanity) are not the solution to the problem.

To me, this seems to be suggesting that the "post-religious enlightenment" world is somehow a worse state than previously -- the word unprecedented is rather misleading. It's worth noting that even given the apparent (what I might call superficial) unprecedented destructiveness of wars of the last century or so, death as a percentage of population isn't rising. For example, around 2% of British the population died in WW1 (which is less than in the English Civil War for example).

War, comparatively, takes a back seat to disease, and the medical advances of the post-enlightenment era are staggering. Smallpox killed more people last century than all of the people in your list combined, and it's very nice than we can now say that it was a disease that killed hundreds of millions. In much of Europe, the Black Death literally halved the population in the mid 14th century (and it wasn't a purely one-off thing either). I've seen estimates for Birtain varying between 30 and 50%. I'm not suggesting this is a specifically non-religious achievment (Edward Jenner saw himself as an instrument of God used for good, for example), but your post seemed to suggest a delinenation, and that the "post-religious enlightenment" was notably worse, whereas I don't think that's really the case. Our current time is statistically incredibly peaceful, has a historically low mortality rate, as well as having seen a general decline in violent crime in many places (such as the US/UK).

[Studlock]

Gnaw, on 06 May 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Science is a set of principles for understanding and explaining natural phenomena. Observation, hypothesis, testability, reproduction of results, creating theories that include all the data, admitting that 'we don't know' when the data is incomplete or inconclusive, and admitting that a theory is wrong when new data no longer supports it.

Thus, physics and biology are scientific disciplines.
PoliSci and the other 'social sciences' are not scientific disciplines due to inherent flaws regarding testability and reproduction of results. Testing is either unethical or impossible and reproduction of those that can be tested has (to date) universally failed.

So I know this out of left field but this is just...wrong. Like really wrong, and just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of any of the fields mentioned. Both Poli Sci and Econ have been reproducing scientific data since at least the 1950s and has, since then, just become more and more quantifiable. Supply and demand is one of the most reproducible facts in science. Game theory, used both in micro Econ and Poli Sci, is one of the most easily proofed scientific theories around. Many more theories in both fields have been focused on empirical data for 50 years plus (that's not to mention Anthro, or empirical based Soci, or Linguistics). It's absurd to say there not scientific disciplines. Likewise something like Evolutionary biology uses many of the same inductive techniques you'd find in sociological or anthropological data analysis. Theoretical physics is mostly based on mathematical proofs that are fundamentally priori knowledge and thus not empirical. Social science aren't natural sciences but to say they aren't 'scientific disciplines' is simply ignorance.

As for the existence for god I've come to the conclusion that if it exist or doesn't isn't actually an important question because clearly the god either works in ways that are 'in tuned' with nature and thus impossible to see, or it is no longer involve of the day-to-day life of existence, or simply doesn't exist. In each scenario I can't do anything about the outcome, I can't know the god's will if it exists, or it doesn't care, or it doesn't exist. The being 'true' I simply act as I see as moral and if god is judgmental hopes it is good enough.

[Maark Abbott]

QuickTidal, on 06 May 2015 - 07:38 PM, said:

D, on 06 May 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

Andorion, on 06 May 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

If the Bible is pro-women, then why does not the Roman Catholic Church, the biggest Christian organization in the world allow women priests?

If my fuzzy recollection of when I used to be catholic and random wikipedia-browsing can be trusted (it most certainly cannot) the hierarchs of the RC Church has, throughout the last twenty centuries, frequently made its own "interpretations" of the bible and designated them as official church canon. Sometimes these interpretations are really weird. Sometimes they are more the result of one Pope really pushing his own batshit crazy ideas, other times it is simply due to the cardinals taking too much inspiration from Dante, Milton and other artists.

Some examples include:

>> the entire idea of 7 circles of hell (invented by Dante, now commonly accepted)
>> the creation of purgatory (because some Pope wanted his pet dog not to go to hell?)
>> making all three "Mary"s in the bible (Jesus' girlfriend disciple, some lady who lets him sleep at her house, and a 'woman of sin' (everyone assumes this means prostitute) who pours perfume on his feet) the same person, because "hey people with the same name is too complicated yo!" (this was church canon for centuries, and finally repealed in the 1970s or so, but "Jesus' girlfriend was a prostitute!" is too entrenched in the culture for anyone to notice it was repealed now)
>> Lucifer, Satan, the Dragon, the Beast, Mephistopheles, etc all being the same name for one Big Bad
>> Satan being in control of Hell somehow (bible says God controls both Heaven and Hell)

Adding:

>> The fact that all Christian demons are actually benevolent gods from other religions...turned into Christian evil baddies "because reasons".

Adding:

1 Timothy 2:12

[Andorion]

Quote

1 Timothy 2:12

I just looked that up. Seriously? And thats in the New Testament?

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 07 May 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

Quote

1 Timothy 2:12

I just looked that up. Seriously? And thats in the New Testament?

'Tis. Kind of makes the notion that "women AREN'T maligned or maltreated" in the bible moot, doesn't it?

[dietl]

Also:
Corinthians 14:32-35

[Andorion]

dietl, on 07 May 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

Also:
Corinthians 14:32-35

Uh, I just looked that up.....and is this the basis for excluding women from Church positions?

This is my problem when people talk about using the Bible as a moral guide. Intelligent, thoughtful people might take a more nuanced view, emphasising for example the parts related to Charity and love, but many people will interpret such verses wholesale. This causes social harm

[Gnaw]

Studlock, on 07 May 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

Gnaw, on 06 May 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Science is a set of principles for understanding and explaining natural phenomena. Observation, hypothesis, testability, reproduction of results, creating theories that include all the data, admitting that 'we don't know' when the data is incomplete or inconclusive, and admitting that a theory is wrong when new data no longer supports it.

Thus, physics and biology are scientific disciplines.
PoliSci and the other 'social sciences' are not scientific disciplines due to inherent flaws regarding testability and reproduction of results. Testing is either unethical or impossible and reproduction of those that can be tested has (to date) universally failed.

So I know this out of left field but this is just...wrong. Like really wrong, and just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of any of the fields mentioned. Both Poli Sci and Econ have been reproducing scientific data since at least the 1950s and has, since then, just become more and more quantifiable. Supply and demand is one of the most reproducible facts in science. Game theory, used both in micro Econ and Poli Sci, is one of the most easily proofed scientific theories around. Many more theories in both fields have been focused on empirical data for 50 years plus (that's not to mention Anthro, or empirical based Soci, or Linguistics). It's absurd to say there not scientific disciplines. Likewise something like Evolutionary biology uses many of the same inductive techniques you'd find in sociological or anthropological data analysis. Theoretical physics is mostly based on mathematical proofs that are fundamentally priori knowledge and thus not empirical. Social science aren't natural sciences but to say they aren't 'scientific disciplines' is simply ignorance.

I hadn't even actually made a comment yet. I was simply defining the terms as I intend to use them.

"Game theory, used both in micro Econ and Poli Sci, is one of the most easily proofed scientific theories around." "Social science aren't natural sciences but to say they aren't 'scientific disciplines' is simply ignorance."

Just because a scientific theory is used by a discipline does not mean the discipline itself is scientific. Please explain to me where you're planning on conducting a test of your favorite political, sociological, or anthropological hypothesis along with the criteria for determining the participants and precise explanation of the steps needed to reproduce your results in another location.

You can fault me for a narrow definition of the term but to ridicule my statements by using your own definition of the term is exactly how we get "teach the controversy". Gathering empirical data is fantastic. It beats guessing and praying. But to call a discipline 'scientific' because it uses some of the tools of science is inaccurate at best and usually what the willfully ignorant do in order to layer a superficial coat of science on top of their guesses and prayers in order to make the truthiness look real.

[Grief]

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

Please explain to me where you're planning on conducting a test of your favorite political, sociological, or anthropological hypothesis along with the criteria for determining the participants and precise explanation of the steps needed to reproduce your results in another location.

I've seen the same criticism levelled at theoretical physics .

[Gnaw]

Grief, on 07 May 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

Please explain to me where you're planning on conducting a test of your favorite political, sociological, or anthropological hypothesis along with the criteria for determining the participants and precise explanation of the steps needed to reproduce your results in another location.

I've seen the same criticism levelled at theoretical physics .

Agreed.

http://en.wikipedia....stream_theories

" and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation."

http://en.wikipedia....oposed_theories

"Proposed theories usually have not been tested."

[Gnaw]

And since I'm feeling especially pissy, I'd like to point out that game theory is math that was found to be useful elsewhere. Saying Political Science is thus a scientific discipline because it uses it is equivalent to saying that Literature is a science because you can use semiotics (a linguistic tool) to deconstruct Shakespeare.



Edit: I was intending yesterday to write up some thoughts on science vs. religion but have already gotten sidetracked fubarraliy. I'll stick with simply agreeing with D'rek about the futility of attempting to prove a deities existence while quietly weeping at Republican politicians in my country who continue to make policy based upon their certainty that a particular one does.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 07 May 2015 - 11:30 PM

[Grief]

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:21 PM, said:

Grief, on 07 May 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

Please explain to me where you're planning on conducting a test of your favorite political, sociological, or anthropological hypothesis along with the criteria for determining the participants and precise explanation of the steps needed to reproduce your results in another location.

I've seen the same criticism levelled at theoretical physics .

Agreed.

http://en.wikipedia....stream_theories

" and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation."

http://en.wikipedia....oposed_theories

"Proposed theories usually have not been tested."

Your quotation is a bit selective.

"and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation. There do exist mainstream theories that are generally accepted theories based solely upon their effects explaining a wide variety of data, although the detection, explanation, and possible composition are subjects of debate."

[Gnaw]

Grief, on 07 May 2015 - 11:26 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:21 PM, said:

Grief, on 07 May 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

Please explain to me where you're planning on conducting a test of your favorite political, sociological, or anthropological hypothesis along with the criteria for determining the participants and precise explanation of the steps needed to reproduce your results in another location.

I've seen the same criticism levelled at theoretical physics .

Agreed.

http://en.wikipedia....stream_theories

" and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation."

http://en.wikipedia....oposed_theories

"Proposed theories usually have not been tested."

Your quotation is a bit selective.

"and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation. There do exist mainstream theories that are generally accepted theories based solely upon their effects explaining a wide variety of data, although the detection, explanation, and possible composition are subjects of debate."

That would be why I included links to the source (although I dislike calling wikipedia a source.) I guess I should have just copy/pasted the whole article?

[Studlock]

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

Studlock, on 07 May 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

Gnaw, on 06 May 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Science is a set of principles for understanding and explaining natural phenomena. Observation, hypothesis, testability, reproduction of results, creating theories that include all the data, admitting that 'we don't know' when the data is incomplete or inconclusive, and admitting that a theory is wrong when new data no longer supports it.

Thus, physics and biology are scientific disciplines.
PoliSci and the other 'social sciences' are not scientific disciplines due to inherent flaws regarding testability and reproduction of results. Testing is either unethical or impossible and reproduction of those that can be tested has (to date) universally failed.

So I know this out of left field but this is just...wrong. Like really wrong, and just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of any of the fields mentioned. Both Poli Sci and Econ have been reproducing scientific data since at least the 1950s and has, since then, just become more and more quantifiable. Supply and demand is one of the most reproducible facts in science. Game theory, used both in micro Econ and Poli Sci, is one of the most easily proofed scientific theories around. Many more theories in both fields have been focused on empirical data for 50 years plus (that's not to mention Anthro, or empirical based Soci, or Linguistics). It's absurd to say there not scientific disciplines. Likewise something like Evolutionary biology uses many of the same inductive techniques you'd find in sociological or anthropological data analysis. Theoretical physics is mostly based on mathematical proofs that are fundamentally priori knowledge and thus not empirical. Social science aren't natural sciences but to say they aren't 'scientific disciplines' is simply ignorance.

I hadn't even actually made a comment yet. I was simply defining the terms as I intend to use them.

"Game theory, used both in micro Econ and Poli Sci, is one of the most easily proofed scientific theories around." "Social science aren't natural sciences but to say they aren't 'scientific disciplines' is simply ignorance."

Just because a scientific theory is used by a discipline does not mean the discipline itself is scientific. Please explain to me where you're planning on conducting a test of your favorite political, sociological, or anthropological hypothesis along with the criteria for determining the participants and precise explanation of the steps needed to reproduce your results in another location.

You can fault me for a narrow definition of the term but to ridicule my statements by using your own definition of the term is exactly how we get "teach the controversy". Gathering empirical data is fantastic. It beats guessing and praying. But to call a discipline 'scientific' because it uses some of the tools of science is inaccurate at best and usually what the willfully ignorant do in order to layer a superficial coat of science on top of their guesses and prayers in order to make the truthiness look real.

Read literally any number of social science papers or journals which clearly lay out it's methodology for reproduction. You're just assuming something of which you don't understand and then proclaim to be right because of those wrong assumptions. It's lazy and ignorant. Also guess what? Science you learned in high school? Is a laughably narrow definition of it. If we only took that as science out goes evolutionary biology and theoretical physics pretty much the foundation of our understanding the of the natural world. Along with most of psychology. Or basically any kind of math based work (math is fundamentally priori knowledge and thus not apart of the narrowly defined 'must follow what I learned in school' science).

I'm not just going to be your teacher, but if you have access to a university library, or JSTOR, I suggest you start actually educating yourself on the subject. Social scientists don't just call that themselves because we're secretly lying about being a science, we call ourselves that because it's a descriptive term. You realize how utterly arrogant it is to look upon multiply disciplines, all of which have housed many people smarter than yourself, and say 'well actually...'? It's as arrogant as looking at the natural world and then proclaiming that your god has the truth of it.

[Gnaw]

I surrender.


Edit: One last question for Studlock though. You university degree is signed by the Dean of the College to which your major's department belongs, yes? Does that College's name include the words "arts" or "humanities" by any chance?

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 07 May 2015 - 11:59 PM

[Illuyankas]

"I concede your point, though I'm going to backhandedly insult your education"

[Studlock]

Gnaw, on 07 May 2015 - 11:39 PM, said:

I surrender.


Edit: One last question for Studlock though. You university degree is signed by the Dean of the College to which your major's department belongs, yes? Does that College's name include the words "arts" or "humanities" by any chance?

It's the Faculty of Arts and Science. And the Head of the Sociology Department.

If you want to know my degree it's a BA and I'm currently in the process of applying to various Master programs around the country.

Sociology, and other social sciences are part of the Humanities because they aren't studying the natural world as natural sciences do. They're applying science to human interaction and human systems and this closely allies them with the study of history, philosophy, literature etc as much as it does to other sciences. Anthropology, for instant, covers a board area that merges biology, history, social psychology, etc.

Like I said social sciences aren't natural sciences but they are science. We don't just accept the conclusions we come to by saying 'wow this makes so much sense *bong rip*' but by putting our hypothesis through various scientific methods. My own field, for you at least, is probably the most common to what you'd call 'non-science' because we rely on qualitative evidence (interviews, surveys, and so on) but this pretty much not the case in most fields such as poli sci, or econ, which extensive lab testing and has been for 50 years plus.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 08 May 2015 - 12:55 AM