Religion and Atheism

[A wilding]

 

But to answer your question, you're missing the point, which is about the limits of science.  I had understood your point to be that science will tell a person what's right, and what I'm saying is that science won't tell you what's right, because science can only tell you what will probably be, and not whether that will be a good thing or not.

The point I was making is that neither side has to fight the science to call their position justified. Both sides can agree on every single scientific claim made, and both sides can agree that every claim made carries some significance.  Yet, because one side's values are different, they choose to weight some facts greater than others, and so without anyone discounting facts or reason or science, they reach differing conclusions, with some in favor of dropping and others not.

This can be seen as an extension of the religious versus a-religious conflict.  The religious are capable of accepting every single fact you might care to mention (outside, perhaps, in some cases, as regards a handful of subjects, like creation) and agree, in the accepting, that the facts are well-established and important after some degree -- and still they might reach a different conclusion from you about policy.

This tells us their conflict is not with science -- they've accepted your science -- but with your values.  Knowing and believing the same facts that you do, they would prefer you'd reach a different conclusion and believe theirs is justified, and vice versa.

The conflict is therefore not one between faith and science, or anyway it needn't be.  The only thing which it is by necessity is a conflict between value sets as to which facts are most important and to what degree.

 

 

I had to quote this, because it so nakedly demonstrates the problem that atheists such as myself have with religion.

The case in question was Stubby's example of a pregnant woman who died along with her already doomed unborn child because the country she lived in has religiously inspired laws that made illegal the abortion that would have saved her life, though not the child's.

The quote above argues that the religious people knew the facts of the case (provided by science), but in their religiously inspired moral judgment still considered it morally more correct to leave the woman to die, despite the fact that she was not of the religion, and even against the wishes of her family.

I really feel that I have no common ground with anyone who can argue this.

 

[Rorshach]

I don't believe this is of interest for everyone, but I believe that Jo498's original statement was in reference to this. I reckon that the thesis is largely unknown outside the history of science. 

[Daemrion]

What?

Ever heard of debate? Reason? Logic? Compromise?

In the end, it still does boil down to that. Yes, we can debate, reason, apply logic and try to compromise, but in the end, especially when we are talking about morals and values, it will boil down to that. If two people take diametrically opposite positions such that one has to be correct and the other has to be wrong then?

[Grimbold]

In the end, it still does boil down to that. Yes, we can debate, reason, apply logic and try to compromise, but in the end, especially when we are talking about morals and values, it will boil down to that. If two people take diametrically opposite positions such that one has to be correct and the other has to be wrong then?

That is normally the result of a discussion yes, that you argue to a point where your opponent's views lose credibility.

If i may apply the case of the woman who died because of religious morals, then, personally, it's crystal clear who would be in the wrong in that discussion.

[Daemrion]

That is normally the result of a discussion yes, that you argue to a point where your opponent's views lose credibility.

If i may apply the case of the woman who died because of religious morals, then, personally, it's crystal clear who would be in the wrong in that discussion.

Who decides who has lost credibility?

[Grimbold]

Who decides who has lost credibility?

We do.

 

[Stubby]

Stubby,

I think you are making a valid and interesting point here.  However, in a Nation-State with a legislative branch that has ultimate power to enact any law it desires without limitation, say like New Zealand for example (I know you're from Perth Western Australia I just needed an unlimited example), how do you propose to prevent that body from passing and then enforcing a law that is, in some way, religiously based.  Doesn't your position necessitate some express limitations upon the power of government to act in particular manners.  Like an express limitation upon the use of religious justification for the passage of a given piece of legislation?

Nope.  I just want to see legislation that doesn't force others to have to conform to another's religious beliefs.

As an example, our state govt recently decided to contract out a state hospital to provide service providers.  The contract was to run this state hospital.  The contract was awarded to the St John of God organisation - catholics - and they promptly refused to offer abortions.  They took a contract from the state to run a public hospital and then decided to impose their morality on the people of that region.  That is, in my view, simply wrong in a secular state.

If someone drafts a piece of legislation that supports a choice to not be bound by a religious belief - such as marriage equality (which is still heavily opposed by the religious down here) then it's fine by me.  If the legislation is supported by evidence and applies equally then it's also fine by me.  

I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Stubby]

So you don't believe that the wicked should be rightly punished? It actually says that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. That's the point, there were no innocents other than those who were saved.

I understand that you may have a hard time believing that there were almost no innocents but if you actually read the text then it makes it pretty clear that everyone (including children) were wicked and evil. And probably why it was a one-off.

You also assume that you are without fault. I would like to put to you the premise that you aren't without fault.

Or rather, it reveals the immaturity of humanity.

 

Firstly, who or what defines "wicked"?

Secondly, I cannot even begin to understand how someone can assert that all the children of the world were inherently evil at the time of the flood.

This, folks paying attention to our earlier discussion is what I would call "fundamentally wrongheaded".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

I agree it'a not too much to ask.  That's not my point.  How do you prevent it without limiting power of a given legislature to enact certain types of legislation?  If you prefer the New Zealand style legislature with unlimited power doesn't the polity run the risk of religious based legislation because that legislature's power is unlimited?

[Stubby]

Yeah it probably doesn't limit them.

But on our case we can hope that religious people will stop and consider people who don't share their faith.  At the last census, there 25 % of Australians that declared they have no religion.  There were another 15% that were not Christians.  The rest were Christians of one form or another.

And it is only the Christians (and to a lesser extent the Muslims) that seek every legislative chance they can get to force their beliefs onto others.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

Speaking as a Christian I do make a choice to attempt to divide my religious POV from my decisions regarding elections.  I try to have a secular basis for how I cas my ballot.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

Speaking as a Christian I do make a choice to attempt to divide my religious POV from my decisions regarding elections.  I try to have a secular basis for how I cas my ballot.

In your case, mate, I do not doubt that.

[Lord Mord]

Stubby,

First bold: I said in my first post in this thread that I will use harsh words when people try to justify the forcing of religious beliefs onto others.  I make no apology for it.  Having said that, how do you think I should engage when I am repeatedly misrepresented, my questions remain unanswered and the only thing raised to refute my real-world examples is philosophical hand waving?

I admit that my chief concern is for civility, so how you get there, is up to you.  One thing you might consider, though, is assuming good faith.  If we both mean to reach a conclusion, and we're both open to looking at facts, then if one of us is truly "right," some combination of facts will probably get us there.  At some point, we may find that we're talking past each other, in which case we stop, recognizing that our aims don't really have anything to do with each other.  At some point, we may find that it's really some one value judgment -- and not a fact at all -- that separates us, in which case we respectfully agree to disagree.  Or at some point, one of us may change his mind.  In none of these instances is abuse a requirement.

The thing is, I don't think anyone here, with the possible exception of Ser Scot can say definitely that he or she has always been civil, and certainly I can't.  It's just, in that moment, it was a bit of a buzzkill for participating in the thread, and I hoped that was not your intention, to make me stop.

But to the point, you keep using this expression, "philosophical hand-waving," but you realize that's all this thread can be about, right?  Philosophy, one's philosophical approach.  You use a dismissive, sneering term in contrast to your shining, concrete "real-world", but again, your examples are merely data.  Your data can't tell me how to feel about the subject, it's numbers or words on a page, full stop.  You then color those facts with your philosophical approach to the world, assigning value to the elements and telling a story.  What is being pointed out is that there is not only one valid philosophy in the world, and those differences of philosophy will take the same facts, color them differently, and reach a different conclusion.  What you call hand-waving, I call an attempt to introduce you to the concept of more than one valid point of view.

In any event, I've realized this morning that I have again spent several posts here in what is essentially a semantic argument.  You have adopted your values in the absence of a religious doctrine, and you have correlated your values so strongly with your self-image as a scientist (by philosophy, if not by profession), that you will not hear of science being separated out of the equation.  You have convinced yourself that science gave you your values, and that's totally fine. I really shouldn't bother trying to dissuade you, since our values and our conclusions, I think, largely align.

I just disagree with your definition of science.  If you're interested in the semantics still, then let me just say this: no one can base their judgment on all of the facts, and weigh them all equally.  Differences in weight are not suspensions of the scientific method, they are simply intrinsic to the existence of differing philosophies and points of view.  Ignoring a fact does not make one un-scientific, because scientists ignore certain facts all the time, in order to reach their conclusions.  They call these facts "outliers" or they say that the connection to why (x) happens has not yet been made, but they still draw inferences from the data that someone else, someone who believes those outliers must be more significant than that, will challenge.  Who is more scientific?  The answer is not absolute; it depends on what you value.  Science will give us the data, but which data we choose to believe are important is not scientific, but personal.

[Lord Mord]

Stubby,

 

Okay.  So.  Uh, sorry, sorry.  Dead horse, and all that, but upon further review, this point struck me forcibly, and I have to respond.  Thank you. 

Third point and sub-point:  I agree entirely.  Which further proves my point. Science relies on facts and religion does not.  I take that as a conflict. I realise you do not and that is fine, but please do not suggest it is OK for religious believers to force their beliefs onto others who may not share their belief by violence, laws or campaigns of shame and embarrassment, on the grounds that their "values" are somehow relevant in the face of scientific fact.

Emphasis mine.

Can you please show me where I said or suggested it was okay?  I merely said it was not necessarily in conflict with science.  I think it highlights the center of our disagreement, when my attempt to bring you around to seeing a religious position as not necessarily in conflict with science suggests to you that I'm saying that the religious position is therefore "okay" -- as if not being in conflict with science would confer moral legitimacy.

Not being in conflict with science is not morally proper or improper; it's a thing unto itself.  Science doesn't care where we get our personal values from, or what we do with those values.  Science will just measure the impact that a realization of our values has on the world.  And that's it, really: science is just an instrument to measure.  Science cannot tell us what is moral, only what the consequences of a given morality will be.  We can disagree over which consequences, and therefore which morals, are most desirable, but at some point that will come down to personal preference.  I would argue that not all personal preferences are morally equal, but that is of course wholly subjective.

[HexMachina]

In the end, it still does boil down to that. Yes, we can debate, reason, apply logic and try to compromise, but in the end, especially when we are talking about morals and values, it will boil down to that. If two people take diametrically opposite positions such that one has to be correct and the other has to be wrong then?

But your taking the stance that religion essentially enables the same thing, but should always have the louder more authoritative voice (why it should I don't exactly understand. Surely logic, reason, evidence etc. are a far superior alternative to "because this book said so")

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This thread is seriously lacking some George Carlin:

Because it's not religion verse science. it's religion verse common sense.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

Yes, I think they're valid -- it's certainly a trump card. Sometimes the belief in question happens to be wrong and then the fact that this is a trump card is not a good thing, but it is one nonetheless.

No. All I'm saying is that there is no conflict between religion and science here. Science can tell you that there are four possible outcomes: mother and child survive, mother survives and child dies, mother dies and child survives or both of them die. It can give you the probabilities of these outcomes. It can tell you how the probability of the mother's survival is altered if the abortion is performed. It can even be more fine-grained and tell you what are the possible health implications for mother and child in the various circumstances.

However, science cannot tell you what to do or even which outcome is preferable. The religiously-motivated decision was that the doctors should attempt to save both mother and child and as a result both of them died. I agree with you that this was a bad outcome, but this statement has nothing to do with science. Science has no way of evaluating moral positions so there is no conflict here between science and religion.

Science is a method used for explaining natural phenomena, to my knowledge no one here is claiming that science can make a decision. However science can inform rationality, which in this case is opposed to religion.

It was understood that there was a risk to the mother's life, in this case the mother's death would have certainly led to the child's death, therefore it is completely irrational to not allow an abortion.

Any sort of rational argument, even if from a pro-life perspective, would be fully supportive of abortion if that chance of death to the mother was greater than 50%.

However as we see in this instance abortion would not be allowed under any circumstances; the request for an abortion based on medical need was ignored. So this is clearly a case of religious irrationality vs rationality and human empathy.

[The Anti-Targ]

The facts are these:

There are logical proofs, based on reasonable assumptions, for the existence of God.

There are logical proofs, based on reasonable assumptions, for the non-existence of God.

Therefore belief, or not, in the existence of God comes down to preference, and more specifically preference about what assumptions you regard as being valid.

Then of course you have anecdote. Given the question of God is beyond the mechanisms of science to validate or invalidate, which means you can't gather objective evidence through repeatable experimentation, anecdotal evidence from a trusted source becomes a valid consideration. And of course personal experience is also valid, to the person. If you, or a person who's honesty and sanity you trust, has had an experience or experiences which strongly suggests the existence of the Divine it is rational to interpret said experience as reasonable evidence of the divine.

[The Anti-Targ]

This thread is seriously lacking some George Carlin:

Because it's not religion verse science. it's religion verse common sense.

But is it common sense to conclude that life is a random outcome and not a planned outcome? The more often life is seen throughout the universe the less random it appears to be, and it starts to appear more and more to be planned. What's the tipping point between life seeming to be more likely to be randomly caused than seeming to be more likely to be deliberately caused? Life is evidence of God, but with a sample size of just one it is very weak evidence right now. My conjecture, therefore, is that eventually science will conclude God is more likely rather than less likely because of the overwhelming evidence of life being abundant in the universe.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

The facts are these:

There are logical proofs, based on reasonable assumptions, for the existence of God.

There are logical proofs, based on reasonable assumptions, for the non-existence of God.

Therefore belief, or not, in the existence of God comes down to preference, and more specifically preference about what assumptions you regard as being valid.

Then of course you have anecdote. Given the question of God is beyond the mechanisms of science to validate or invalidate, which means you can't gather objective evidence through repeatable experimentation, anecdotal evidence from a trusted source becomes a valid consideration. And of course personal experience is also valid, to the person. If you, or a person who's honesty and sanity you trust, has had an experience or experiences which strongly suggests the existence of the Divine it is rational to interpret said experience as reasonable evidence of the divine.

Of course the existence of god is beyond the mechanisms of science, the existence of god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and thus, by definition, ridiculous.