|
Brainiac Five posted:So you refuse to answer the question and just offer a tawdry deflection. According to a number of people in this thread, science and religion cannot coexist and so religious people, by extension, cannot be good scientists. Shouldn't they, as a group, then be banned or forcibly deconverted, then? I'm sorry you can't parse a direct answer, should I have worded it as a koan?
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm sorry you can't parse a direct answer, should I have worded it as a koan? Your answer was irrelevant to the actual question, but I see you're just a snivelling little child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
I don't think science is really 'narrowing our imaginative horizons', but 'all things are possible' is not true. It is not, for example, possible to increase the net carbon dioxide concentration in that atmosphere without having an effect on global temperature. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. As we move into an era of more sophisticated technologies, societies and potential crises & catastrophes, the tasks of prediction, analysis and modelling are going to become more important. If it is to survive, any political ideology must face this situation with a clarity of purpose, a strong basis in materialism and scientific thinking, and without any sentimentality for archaic prejudices or relationships. In that context, advocating any kind of return of mysticism, mythology or spirituality to political ideology is dangerous and stupid. You can, privately, believe whatever you want. That's never mattered. But the existence of spiritualism in public debate is toxic. Society, as a whole, must reckon with the material reality it finds itself in. None of this excludes the idea of 'vision', a goal that's is believed possible and that is worked towards, but said vision must be secular in both effect and intent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your answer was irrelevant to the actual question, but I see you're just a snivelling little child. Brainiac Five posted:Should university programs in the natural sciences ban religious people from enrolling, or should they be required to undergo indoctrination? Liquid Communism posted:To the extent that those religious people outright believe that said natural science cannot be valid? Yes. Does that help your abysmal reading comprehension, or are you just here to be a smug pedant? If you are 'actually' asking a different question, then use your words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Should university programs in the natural sciences ban religious people from enrolling, or should they be required to undergo indoctrination? After all, they are an existential threat to the program, according to at least some of the people in this thread. Brainiac Five posted:Okay good luck re-educating religious people then Cingulate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Why would you ever ban a fundamentalist from a science program?  They'll effectively marginalize themselves if they use God as an explanation for everything. They're unlikely to ever rise to a position of power unless they keep their beliefs under wraps, and even then they'd have to produce good science along the way. You'd probably get closer to your desired outcome if you forced religious people to enroll in science classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Where is this coming from? I'm lost, what is this about? Pretty sure he's just being obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
If we remove religion from its role in public life without fashioning it a suitable replacement we do capital's work for it by demolishing one of the last vectors for collective political action, one of the last anchors in the social sphere that people can hold onto in order to glean meaning for their lives. If y'all believed as the anarchist Buenaventura Durruti did, that "the only illuminating church is a burning church," I could at least get on board, as Durruti had a competing vision for society that was radical, transformative and transcendant, in stark contrast to whatever vestigial, incremental half-measures the dessicated husk of the modern left can muster.rudatron posted:If it is to survive, any political ideology must face this situation with a clarity of purpose, a strong basis in materialism and scientific thinking, and without any sentimentality for archaic prejudices or relationships. We will ban sentiment, ban love, ban dancing and poetry and all these other things and live our lives as empty husks dully regurgitating only proven facts at each other. quote:In that context, advocating any kind of return of mysticism, mythology or spirituality to political ideology is dangerous and stupid. You misunderstand the concept of myth. The power of a myth I'm talking about is not in its factual basis or historicity, myths can be absolutely true or absolutely false, that's immaterial to their social purpose. The point is that they allow us to imagine things beyond the dull reality of our existence and hypothesize a future. Currently, the future is canceled or on indefinite hold. All our visions of the future drawn from the present reality are utterly monstrous as they follow the trajectory currently existing conditions mark out. You don't see utopias in popular fiction because capital, as a self-appointed patron and arbiter of art and culture just like the mediaeval church was, has a vested interest in you thinking things can't get better than they are and there is no alternative. That's why being able to think of and take seriously things that aren't immediately real and extant is so important. The future can be a promise again, rather than a threat, but this requires a feat of collective imagination akin to religious fervour. To reiterate, sure, get rid of religion, but have a replacement on hand, or you'd only be forfeiting a ready-made conduit for resistance down the line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Why would you ever ban a fundamentalist from a science program? Cingulate fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Does that help your abysmal reading comprehension, or are you just here to be a smug pedant? If you are 'actually' asking a different question, then use your words. Your answer is irrelevant to the question of whether people are willing to put their money where their mouth is with regards to "religion is incompatible with science" and "religious people are inherently insane". That is, if you believe that religious people are inherently delusional, then surely they must be treated like any other person with delusions and medicated or otherwise treated into being irreligious. If you believe that religion is incompatible with science, religious people cannot be scientists without corrupting science. If you don't believe those things, your nitwit opinions are irrelevant squeaking that does nothing but hamper the process of forcing New Atheists to confront the consequences of their sick owns on idiot godhavers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your answer is irrelevant to the question of whether people are willing to put their money where their mouth is with regards to "religion is incompatible with science" and "religious people are inherently insane". That is, if you believe that religious people are inherently delusional, then surely they must be treated like any other person with delusions and medicated or otherwise treated into being irreligious. If you believe that religion is incompatible with science, religious people cannot be scientists without corrupting science. If you don't believe those things, your nitwit opinions are irrelevant squeaking that does nothing but hamper the process of forcing New Atheists to confront the consequences of their sick owns on idiot godhavers. Show me on the doll where the mean atheist touched you. I'm not going to make the argument that you're desperately baiting for, that there should be an absolute ban on people of religious faith in STEM fields. Build your own straw men.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Show me on the doll where the mean atheist touched you. I wasn't specifically addressing you at first, "Liquid Communism", although I'm grateful you decided to make a child molestation joke and shriek about how I'm strawmanning you. It seems the guilty really do flee when no one pursues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Who's calling for religious delusions to be treated? We don't treat most delusions outside of extreme cases where some danger is imminent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
I don't get where Brainiac is coming from. It reads like a warning for a very extreme interpretation of what might go totally wrong if zealous leftist atheists had a lot of power, but I don't see how it's a response to the much more moderate positions probably held by anybody in here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Who's calling for religious delusions to be treated? So far as I can tell, Brainiac is. I haven't really seen anyone else go there, he just keeps pushing the envelope further in hopes someone will try to defend the arguments he's trying to counter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Who's calling for religious delusions to be treated? Since religiosity has a history of leading people to self-harm (Vietnamese monks burning themselves alive as a means of protest), I should think it would be obvious that drugging people into atheism would be necessary if we characterize religiosity as insanity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
I do like the confession of immorality implicit in "religion is insanity, but don't treat the insane."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I do like the confession of immorality implicit in "religion is insanity, but don't treat the insane." For 1., religious people usually don't experience their religiosity as an extreme cause of unwanted suffering. Depressed people often experience their depression as a cause of unwanted suffering. If they don't, or if they simply don't ask to be treated, we don't treat them. Just think of mental health much like physical health in this regard. For 2., most religious people don't present such a danger, and those we believe do we already lock up. If you buy guns and tell me tomorrow you'll pave the way for Lord Jesus to ride into Hypothetical Example High School, CA by purging the unclean, they're gonna lock you up. That seems acceptable to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Idk dude, if someone gets taken by paramedics for a suicide attempt they get treated even if they're depressed, so this libertarian-individualist approach to medicine seems to be your ideal rather than a description of reality. Really, you guys want to be able to chuckle about how the Jewish faith is so stupid and will be destroyed in the ever-receding future without committing yourself to doing anything. While I would prefer you to get over your inferiority complexes, idiotic crusades to annihilate religion would at least leave you free from the stain of being whiny little babies begging for a messianic figure to do all the work for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Idk dude, if someone gets taken by paramedics for a suicide attempt they get treated even if they're depressed, so this libertarian-individualist approach to medicine seems to be your ideal rather than a description of reality. Cingulate posted:We treat people who have mental health problems, and who either 1. freely decide that they'd prefer to not have them - asking to be helped, or 2. present a clear and imminent danger to themselves or others. Brainiac Five posted:Really, you guys want to be able to chuckle about how the Jewish faith is so stupid and will be destroyed in the ever-receding future without committing yourself to doing anything. While I would prefer you to get over your inferiority complexes, idiotic crusades to annihilate religion would at least leave you free from the stain of being whiny little babies begging for a messianic figure to do all the work for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I can't connect this to anything here. I get you're angry and/or afraid, but I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe if you reformulate it, I will be able to see what you're concerned about? Cingulate, you'd need to have a brain that wasn't riddled with wormholes to understand that the way you talk about religion is to fantasize about its imminent nonexistence but you are unwilling to take any action to exterminate the madness that is religion, retreating into insisting that it's harmless. That is, either your statements about religion are just a form of extended masturbation, or you're unwilling to take action to make your desires reality, but either condition is one you all must be liberated from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Cingulate, you'd need to have a brain that wasn't riddle with wormholes to understand that the way you talk about religion is to fantasize about its imminent nonexistence but you are unwilling to take any action to exterminate the madness that is religion, retreating into insisting that it's harmless. Cool, let's just trample on Freedom of expession then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Cool, let's just trample on Freedom of expession then. Hmm?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Cingulate, you'd need to have a brain that wasn't riddled with wormholes to understand that the way you talk about religion is to fantasize about its imminent nonexistence but you are unwilling to take any action to exterminate the madness that is religion, retreating into insisting that it's harmless. I think, and many others do, that people have a right to self determination that cannot simply ignored for appeals to some greater (or some other) good. This includes their right to religious though and practices (at least to the point they don't infringe upon other's etc etc everyone knows this). And I don't want to be liberated from this. I hope I stay like this forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is a bit confusing and vague (what statements of mine?..), but maybe it will help you see where I'm coming from to consider that there are many things in this world I wish were different, but where I think I have no rights and consequently no intentions to demand or induce change. E.g. I wish all people would agree that I'm a super nice and cool person and give me back rubs and bake me cookies, but I don't think I have a right to steal other people's cookies or rub my back against their hands like a mad cat, or demand that they like me. I have opinions, but I'm usually not in a good position to decide for others. So, in other words, you wish to be hypocritical and for no one to work on making you not so. Well, I got freedom of speech to tell you you're a hypocrite over and over, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, in other words, you wish to be hypocritical and for no one to work on making you not so. Well, I got freedom of speech to tell you you're a hypocrite over and over, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't understand what you mean. I know you don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:What I don't get is why or when the bromance of science, philosophy and religion ended. I've researched enough about religion and philosophy (science hurts my brain) to know that it was only a few short centuries ago when all of these things were bound together and got along just fine. The fascinating Scholastic tradition of Roman Catholicism for instance was built on the idea that humans can learn and understand everything, including God and metaphysical mater. Thomas Aquinas was not a gibbering Christian dope who said "The Lord knows and I'm free to be as ignorant as possible." He was a pretty smart dude and along with a lot of other deeply religious people he sincerely believed understanding of the world was perfectly in line with understanding God. At least, I think so. It has been a while. I think it stems in part from the popularization of science, taking it out of the realm of purely scientific debate and putting the controversies out in front of the public before the other scientists have had their say. Darwin's On The Origin Of Species was a regular book written for laymen, rather than a scientific paper submitted to an academic journal and subjected to peer review. As a result, his ideas - which challenged the then-dominant scientific theories - had been pushed into the public discourse before they'd been validated by his peers, and therefore much of the scientific and theological debate over Darwin's ideas played out (often heavily sensationalized) in the newspapers rather than within the scientific community. Luckily, Darwin's theories have held up under review and are still held to be correct today, but publishing your science for the mass media before letting your fellow scientists review it is now considered to be bad practice, and for good reason. Darwinism posed real problems for both the science and theology of the time, but by putting it in a regular book rather than a scientific publication, Darwin ensured that the conflicts had been made public before either field had a chance to really evaluate them. It made perfect fodder for the rising atheist movement to challenge Christian authorities and portray them as backward and resistant to knowledge, which in turn provided the soon-to-arise early fundamentalists and evangelicals a basis to attack scientists as radical atheists intent on spreading godlessness and destroying religion. The controversy was helped along by the fact that although Darwin's work quickly led to broad acceptance of the basic theory of evolution, many of the specific details he laid out were thought to be dubious until the discovery of genetics decades later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
I think we may need a flowchart here, as I'm not really getting what exactly it is about not agreeing to your ridiculously overblown parody of an anti religious position that makes Cingulate a hypocrite either. Edit: autocorrect autocorrected Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Something along the lines that if you support some cause or favor a particular outcome but aren't putting 100% effort into making it happen you are a hypocrite, probably? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
The hypocrisy is the desire to treat religiosity as a medical condition rhetorically without committing yourself to treating it as a medical condition materially, to have your cake of spitting on religion by classifying it as a disability and eat it too by never actually treating it as one. That is, if religion is the medical disorder you all insist it is, you are unwilling to advocate the equivalent of wheelchairs or glasses for those disabled by religiosity, and indeed defend the notion that those disabled ought receive no assistance whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I know you don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How is this helping anybody? If you cared about people's well-being you wouldn't post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
If you are seriously going to treat religion as a mental illness, you'd have to trample over free expression of belief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you are seriously going to treat religion as a mental illness, you'd have to trample over free expression of belief. Right. I disagree with the notion that religion is a mental illness or ought to be treated as such, mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Not that free expression of belief shouldn't be trampled on a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If you cared about people's well-being you wouldn't post. Brainiac Five posted:The hypocrisy is the desire to treat religiosity as a medical condition rhetorically without committing yourself to treating it as a medical condition materially, to have your cake of spitting on religion by classifying it as a disability and eat it too by never actually treating it as one. This goes much more so if your condition is not clearly pathological, i.e. an aberrant biological state that causes you suffering, but something billions of people engage in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not that free expression of belief shouldn't be trampled on a bit. Well obviously we're talking about belief, not enforcement of beliefs on others. i.e.: Some Fundie whacko can believe gays are icky, but he still has to accept them as human being and no refuse to serve them in a public buisiness or deny them rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:These are a lot of words to repeat what you've already said, which is that "supernatural" does not actually mean "beyond what is natural/known" but really means "something I have concluded is impossible a priori". You will undoubtedly respond that your definition is actually "anything which involves magic", never defining "magic", placing the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot and other cryptids firmly in the realm of the natural, alongside UFO encounters. What we have here is more or less a fetishized science, where whether you can see yourself loving a test-tube in relation to something is what's really important. You still keep obfuscating the point intentionally. I'm using the regular definition for supernatural, you just refuse to accept that is what the word means. Things that are supernatural: gods, ghosts, spirits, auras, magic, psychic powers. Magic can easily be defined as creation or use of energy via a spiritual mechanism. Healing from a prayer, using Gaia to make plants grow, connecting the "the spirit world", casting a spell that actually does something, a whole poo poo load of things would count as magic. Kooks who believe cryptozoology and UFO abductions are much closer to conspiracy theorists than supernatural believers. People that believe shapeshifting lizards control the mechanisms of power doesn't have anything to do with supernatural, even if it is crazy as poo poo. The lizards are supposed to be aliens or something and use superior technology to fool us all. It's crazy town and horribly wrong, but it doesn't have to be supernatural to be wrong. It can still be unscientific without being magic. How about you stop hiding behind your pedantic definition goalpost shifting and posit why we should treat spiritual claims with the same validity as tested natural claims. You haven't responded to that at all yet. You just keep trying to shift the definitions of spiritual and supernatural to fit your straw man tear downs no one else is actually promoting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well obviously we're talking about belief, not enforcement of beliefs on others. Eeeeeehhhhhh I would suggest that they shouldn't really do either and that the only reason not to club them over the head to stop them doing the former is the efficacy of the approach, or lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:52
|
|