Religion and Atheism

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

I would say those crop up as soon as people believe it is proper to use violent coersion to coerce people doing something that has no affecf upon anyone but the person coerced.

[Stubby]

 

If you think that this nessecarily follows, make the argument you think I left out. Otherwise, if not, what you just did is a logical fallacy - poisoning the well. 

I don't think that's helpful for discussion.

Others have pointed out a number of problems with your position.  I agree with OAR and Tywin et al on this.

In the same sense as you reckon that we have made mere assertions, so have you.

Only one question need be asked of your examples to prove how your position is built on a foundation of butter: "How did we (humanity) work out how to perform an abortion?"

As to Jo498's hand waving, I've made the point I set out to make - which is that it is not "fundamentally wrongheaded" to argue that science and religion have conflicts in more than just creationism and cosmology.  Talk about poisoning the well.

OAR,

I would say those crop up as soon as people believe it is proper to use violent coersion to coerce people doing something that has no affecf upon anyone but the person coerced.

It doesn't need violent coercion, Scot.  "Pray away the gay" sound familiar?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

That's the first time I've heard that phrase.  But it doesn't surprise me.  Is that in the context of parents telling their minor children to "correct" with their homosexuality with prayer?  Between adults it's a jerky thing to say but I don't see it as "coersion".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I concur with what OAR and the Dropbear said.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

That's the first time I've heard that phrase.  But it doesn't surprise me.  Is that in the context of parents telling their minor children to "correct" with their homosexuality with prayer?  Between adults it's a jerky thing to say but I don't see it as "coersion".

Here is an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_the_Gay_Away%3F

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

Yup, first I've heard of that phrase.

[Rorshach]

 

What I did was to point to actual beliefs of real world religions- the subject of this discussion. Tywin et al. referred to religion making moral claims with nothing to back it up (choosing one from a list of topics religions make claims about), you then replied with an argument related to that one choice, abortion, arriving at life being precious.

My response is a reminder that this one argument you replied with comes nowhere near exhaustively defending even the religious views on Stubby's list, let alone all the other numerous real world, actually held stances by religions that we could bring up (on issues such as homosexuality, gender dynamics, or religious conflict). And so it remains to be established that these stances are backed up by something, rather than merely asserted by religious leaders or scripture, which was the thrust of Tywin et al.'s objection.

The accusation of 'poisoning the well' is a total non-sequitur, and a deflection.

I'll contend that you've missed my point entirely, and furthermore, I'll contend that you've misread my post replying to Stubby. Therefore, I'll maintain that the assertion that you are poisoning the well holds true.

Let me back that up. 

Firstly, re: the first bolded part, no. The discussion isn't about real-world religion as such, but as to whether there is a conflict between religion and science. On that point, your initial phrase falls through, as it isn't replying to the point at hand. Secondly, it isn't even replying to my post. Now, I know that, in the context of a discussion board, not everything is about me. However, if you quote my post intentionally, I expect you to reply to it at some level. The question that followed  was in no way implied in my post, and those claims do not nessecarily or logically follow from what I wrote. Therefore, the only effect the questions had was to poison the well. 

If you still contend it wasn't poisoning the well, I'll expect arguments, not assertions.

Secondly, on the second bolded part: I did respond - shortly, as it happens, but I did respond - to Stubby's list. I'm surprised, then, that you claim I'm not. And I did not respond in order to defend everything there, or to objections not uttered, but to indicate that I found his list lacking in respect to what he wanted to do with it - namely to show a conflict beteween religion and science. I contend that only two of the items on his list fit his criteria, and those are marginal instances, like what Jo498 argued about YECs and such. If you want me to defend them, I will not, as I don't hold to these position (I do remain unconvinced in the abortion arugment, though, as to what constitutes a life). Thus, to say that I've not defended them is to miss the point entirely.

[Rorshach]

Others have pointed out a number of problems with your position.  I agree with OAR and Tywin et al on this.

In the same sense as you reckon that we have made mere assertions, so have you.

Only one question need be asked of your examples to prove how your position is built on a foundation of butter: "How did we (humanity) work out how to perform an abortion?"

As to Jo498's hand waving, I've made the point I set out to make - which is that it is not "fundamentally wrongheaded" to argue that science and religion have conflicts in more than just creationism and cosmology.  Talk about poisoning the well.

Re: the bolded - you'll have to unpack that. Both how it relates to my position, and how it disproves my foundation. 

Also, I did contend that your list was lacking. I did ask you to expand, clarify, argue, that I was wrong in dismissing it. I would very much like you to do that. Adding JW to the list of problems between science and religion hardly makes an impact on the argument Jo498 was making, as we are adding a fringe group with very few adherents. The main thrust of his argument, then, still holds. 

And please note: I'm not defending every position I refer to. We are arguing on the incompability of science and religion - not whether I hold every view religious people around the world may hold.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Stubby,

That's the first time I've heard that phrase.  But it doesn't surprise me.  Is that in the context of parents telling their minor children to "correct" with their homosexuality with prayer?  Between adults it's a jerky thing to say but I don't see it as "coersion".

I'm kinda shocked to hear that Scot. The term got a lot of attention in 2011 due to Michele Bachmann's husband. But it can range from simple prayer to very disturbing abuses.

[Wise Fool]

I have no idea where you came up with the baffling notion that being motivated by religious belief is somehow outside the realm of human psychology. As near as I can tell, your adherence to this position is motivated by nothing more than your perverse attempt to reinvent Harris' argument as some limp attempt to "Otherize" radical Islamists, rather than what it actually is, which is simply having the decency to take the actual stated motivations of radical Islamists seriously. 

I'm genuinely curious - on what basis have you concluded that radical Islamists - people willing to blow themselves up in service to Allah - are LYING when they explain that their religious faith motivates their actions?

Based on the frequency with which you purport to be able to divine the hidden motivations - both of other posters on the board, and hundreds of radical Islamist terrorists that you've never even met - I'm inclined to believe you must be in possession of some kind of psychic powers. 

Or you just make shit up. One of the two. 

 

The argument is that "devout Muslims" do NOT want "what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends" but are instead motivated solely by religion. The argument is an attempt to "Otherize" Muslims. Not sure how I can better explain this to you, particularly when you are confused about what you and Harris are nominally talking about:

You keep trying to walk back your own quoted argument by Harris into referring to "radical Islamists," specifically ISIS, when both he in stating it and you in quoting it referred only to "devout Muslims." You're still doing it now. Did you... misquote Harris? Did he refer to "radical Islamists" or "ISIS fighters beheading people" and I only hallucinated the words "devout Muslims" in their place? Maybe it was a typo?

And that's pretty rich, I lack "the decency to take the actual stated motivations of" people who murder themselves and others. The DECENCY. As if it's indecent of me, to not take terrorists at their word. And apparently I need psychic powers to doubt the word of terrorists, but you don't need psychic powers to know they're telling the truth. That's fucking rich. Ugh, you genuinely disgust me.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

 

I'll contend that you've missed my point entirely, and furthermore, I'll contend that you've misread my post replying to Stubby. Therefore, I'll maintain that the assertion that you are poisoning the well holds true.

Let me back that up. 

Firstly, re: the first bolded part, no. The discussion isn't about real-world religion as such, but as to whether there is a conflict between religion and science. On that point, your initial phrase falls through, as it isn't replying to the point at hand. Secondly, it isn't even replying to my post. Now, I know that, in the context of a discussion board, not everything is about me. However, if you quote my post intentionally, I expect you to reply to it at some level. The question that followed  was in no way implied in my post, and those claims do not nessecarily or logically follow from what I wrote. Therefore, the only effect the questions had was to poison the well. 

If you still contend it wasn't poisoning the well, I'll expect arguments, not assertions.

You pose a bizarre distinction here which I can make absolutely no sense of. How would we address the question of conflict between religion and science without considering real world religion, without considering real world positions- and points of potential conflict- such as those I and others have named? The clear answer is that we'd be discussing exactly nothing if we didn't make reference to real religious beliefs- this is the very crux of the matter. The beliefs I raised are therefore obviously pertinent, and I can take your attempted distinction as nothing more than additional evasion, to go along with your repeat of the evasive accusation that I'm 'poisoning the well.'

Further, I am not saying those claims logically follow from what you wrote- it's exactly the opposite! I'm saying they do not logically follow, and are therefore examples of exactly what Tywin et al. mentioned, religious beliefs based on mere assertion. I'll expand below.

 

Secondly, on the second bolded part: I did respond - shortly, as it happens, but I did respond - to Stubby's list. I'm surprised, then, that you claim I'm not. And I did not respond in order to defend everything there, or to objections not uttered, but to indicate that I found his list lacking in respect to what he wanted to do with it - 

namely to show a conflict beteween religion and science. 

I contend that only two of the items on his list fit his criteria, and those are marginal instances, like what Jo498 argued about YECs and such. If you want me to defend them, I will not, as I don't hold to these position (I do remain unconvinced in the abortion arugment, though, as to what constitutes a life). Thus, to say that I've not defended them is to miss the point entirely.

 Yes, your earlier response to Stubby's list was aimed at disagreeing that the items showed a conflict between religion and science.

What I claimed was that your response to Tywin et al. (who raised the point that religions often don't attempt to justify their beliefs, just make assertions based off the words of religious leaders or scriptures) offered a justification of only one belief. I did not say you didn't 'respond' to Stubby's list, but that religious beliefs like those on his list (and more) still stand in need of justification if they are not to be considered examples of religions just basing beliefs on assertions by religious leaders or scriptures.

I'm not expecting you to defend all of those beliefs, nor did I think you were attempting to (indeed, I chose examples I felt it would not be possible to defend). The point is that posing an argument which defends one specific belief, does not deal with the thrust of the criticism that religious beliefs often rely on mere assertions by religious leaders or scriptures. We still have plenty of other examples of exactly what Tywin et al. was saying, plenty of examples of religions just basing beliefs on assertions by religious leaders or scriptures.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The argument is that "devout Muslims" do NOT want "what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends" but are instead motivated solely by religion. The argument is an attempt to "Otherize" Muslims. Not sure how I can better explain this to you, particularly when you are confused about what you and Harris are nominally talking about:

You keep trying to walk back your own quoted argument by Harris into referring to "radical Islamists," specifically ISIS, when both he in stating it and you in quoting it referred only to "devout Muslims." You're still doing it now. Did you... misquote Harris? Did he refer to "radical Islamists" or "ISIS fighters beheading people" and I only hallucinated the words "devout Muslims" in their place? Maybe it was a typo?

And that's pretty rich, I lack "the decency to take the actual stated motivations of" people who murder themselves and others. The DECENCY. As if it's indecent of me, to not take terrorists at their word. And apparently I need psychic powers to doubt the word of terrorists, but you don't need psychic powers to know they're telling the truth. That's fucking rich. Ugh, you genuinely disgust me.

Your entire argument is predicated on a willful misreading of Harris' argument to disingenuously misrepresent his position. The entire basis of the misrepresentation is your latching onto the word "devout" and suggesting that Harris is using it in a way that he is actually not.

I actually don't have an issue with the conceding the fact that I think Harris' use of "devout" in this context is a mistake - not because, in the context of his article, it's not clear what he's talking about. I think it absolutely is. The mistake is in the ambiguity over exactly what "devout" actually means in a wider social context.

In his article, it's clear that Harris is contrasting "devout" Muslims with "moderate" Muslims. Harris has no problem acknowledging that many Muslims, which he considers to be moderates, have no problem adhering to the tenets of liberal society:

Yes, many Muslims happily ignore the apostasy and blasphemy of their neighbors, view women as the moral equals of men, and consider anti-Semitism contemptible. But there are also Muslims who drink alcohol and eat bacon. All of these persuasions run counter to the explicit teachings of Islam to one or another degree. And just like moderates in every other religion, most moderate Muslims become obscurantists when defending their faith from criticism. They rely on modern, secular values—for instance, tolerance of diversity and respect for human rights—as a basis for reinterpreting and ignoring the most despicable parts of their holy books. But they nevertheless demand that we respect the idea of revelation, and this leaves us perpetually vulnerable to more literal readings of scripture.

In fact, his entire article was prefaced with the following caveat:

I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS, nor would I want to give any shelter or inspiration to the hatred of Muslims as people. In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.

 

Personally, I think that "devout" was the wrong word to use. I think that "devout" properly denotes the depth of one's devotion, but does not necessarily connote the nature of the faith to which one is devoted. Which is to say, it might be the case that a "devout" Christian is a fundamentalist Christian (that is often the implication), but that it's also plausible that you can be a "devout" Christian adhering to a more liberal branch of the faith. The same is true of Muslims. 

But that's a slightly abstruse terminological quibble. The actual context of Harris' article, the contrast between "devout" Muslims and the "moderate" and "nominal" Muslims who Harris considers as not taking their religion very seriously (I think with some level of obvious truth), is clear. 

In typical liberal discussions, one might simply refer to these radical Islamists as such, or as "extremists." Harris, for very specific reasons which are consistent with his posture as a "New Atheist," rejects the idea that the positions these Islamists hold is actually "extreme.":

Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.

I actually think this is a perfectly plausible reason to reject calling radical Islamists "extremists" - even though I am still inclined to do so. 

And this, ultimately, is the problem with your entire style of argumentation. You aren't actually interested in a discussion. The only thing you are interested in is attaching convenient labels to the people you disagree with. It's fine to engage in terminological disputes. But terminological disputes don't actually resolve or "win" arguments. If you're fighting over the particular meaning of a word, you're not actually engaged in the discussion, because terminology is the foundation upon which these discussions are held - not the actual discussion itself. 

In sum - whether Harris should have called them "devout" or "extremists" or "radical Islamists" his point is correct. They don't care about those things and they never have. They'd rather rape virgins in the afterlife than live comfortably in this one. 

 

 

[Rorshach]

 

You pose a bizarre distinction here which I can make absolutely no sense of. How would we address the question of conflict between religion and science without considering real world religion, without considering real world positions- and points of potential conflict- such as those I and others have named? The clear answer is that we'd be discussing exactly nothing if didn't make reference to real religious beliefs- this is the very crux of the matter. The beliefs I raised are therefore clearly pertinent, and I can take your attempted distinction as nothing more than additional evasion, to go along with your repeat of the evasive accusation that I'm 'poisoning the well.'

I am not saying those claims logically follow from what you wrote- it's exactly the opposite! I'm saying they do not logically follow, and are therefore examples of exactly what Tywin et al. mentioned, religious beliefs based on mere assertion. I'll expand below.

 

Well, I'll argue that you've still missed the point. 

Sure, you will have to argue from real-life situations. But just like Stubby's somewhat bizarre contention about food rules, such a thing as "kill the infidels" isn't a position that science argues for or against. It is a moral and ethical position, and you'll base your arguments on what you think of religion, and how you feel about killing. Science doesn't inform your desicion. So, for that case (as an example), you have not raised a relevant topic in this context. You have raised a moral question.

I happen to find the moral question interesting in itself, and I don't see us disagreeing much about whether it's right or wrong (though we may disagree on reasoning), but as an example of religion vs science, it just falls through. 

Similarly (and this is contentious), science - in the meaning of "hard science" - has, as far as I know, not established that there is something in nature itself that makes one homosexual or not. What we have here is "softer" sciences - sociology etc. However, those studies, convincing as they are if you accept their premises, are not what we normally refer to as "scientific truth". So, in order to use science to disprove something, they fail. (Please do not think I'm trying to argue against homosexuality here. And if the studies exist, natural science, please link.) Therefore, we end up in a discussion about softer sciences, which ... aren't really going to convince people too often, religious or not. There are professors in the softer sciences who holds different views, and as long as there are no "hard proofs" to base the claims on, people will (correctly) say that science claims both this and that.

And that's why, for the third time, I maintain that your comment was well-poisoning. It failed to adress the subject, and the tone of it was not one that tried to initiate dialogue. This isn't a non-sequiteur, or a dodge (I've written more than you - or Stubby, for that matter - to defend my assertions) - it is a precise definition of that initial comment. If you don't like it, fine, but that does not change the fact.

 Yes, your earlier response to Stubby's list was aimed at disagreeing that the items showed a conflict between religion and science.

What I claimed was that your response to Tywin et al. (who raised the point the religions often don't attempt to justify their beliefs, just make assertions based off the words of religious leaders or scriptures) offered a justification of only one belief. I did not say you didn't 'respond' to Stubby's list, but that religious beliefs like those on his list (and more) still stand in need of justification if they are not to be considered examples of religions just basing beliefs on assertions by religious leaders or scriptures.

I'm not expecting you to defend all of those beliefs, nor did I think you were attempting to. The point is that posing an argument which defends one specific belief, does not deal with the thrust of the criticism that religious beliefs often rely on mere assertions by religious leaders or scriptures. We still have plenty of other examples of exactly what Tywin et al. was saying, plenty of examples of religions just basing beliefs on assertions by religious leaders or scriptures.

As to the first bold here - Stubby raised these concerns as places where religion stood against science. I claimed - and still claim - that most of his list didn't support his point. He hasn't defended it. Now, as he raised the concerns, I hold that he should justify why he thinks they represent a conflict between religion and science. He hasn't done that. 

Generally, it is a sound principle that those making a positive assertion need to back up their claim. To claim, as you in effect are doing here, that the burden of proof isn't on the claimant is not the normal way of discussing.

If you bring up other examples, I'll look at them. But remember what the question I'm arguing is: that there is a conflict between religion and science. Also, as a reminder, Jo498 spesifically pointed out that there is a problem, but that it is a modern phenomenon, and generally found in modern, evangelical American Christianity. Examples from that area are, thus, already a given.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Well, I'll argue that you've still missed the point. 

Sure, you will have to argue from real-life situations. But just like Stubby's somewhat bizarre contention about food rules, such a thing as "kill the infidels" isn't a position that science argues for or against. It is a moral and ethical position, and you'll base your arguments on what you think of religion, and how you feel about killing. Science doesn't inform your desicion. So, for that case (as an example), you have not raised a relevant topic in this context. You have raised a moral question.

I happen to find the moral question interesting in itself, and I don't see us disagreeing much about whether it's right or wrong (though we may disagree on reasoning), but as an example of religion vs science, it just falls through. 

Similarly (and this is contentious), science - in the meaning of "hard science" - has, as far as I know, not established that there is something in nature itself that makes one homosexual or not. What we have here is "softer" sciences - sociology etc. However, those studies, convincing as they are if you accept their premises, are not what we normally refer to as "scientific truth". So, in order to use science to disprove something, they fail. (Please do not think I'm trying to argue against homosexuality here. And if the studies exist, natural science, please link.) Therefore, we end up in a discussion about softer sciences, which ... aren't really going to convince people too often, religious or not. There are professors in the softer sciences who holds different views, and as long as there are no "hard proofs" to base the claims on, people will (correctly) say that science claims both this and that.

And that's why, for the third time, I maintain that your comment was well-poisoning. It failed to adress the subject, and the tone of it was not one that tried to initiate dialogue. This isn't a non-sequiteur, or a dodge (I've written more than you - or Stubby, for that matter - to defend my assertions) - it is a precise definition of that initial comment. If you don't like it, fine, but that does not change the fact.

As to the first bold here - Stubby raised these concerns as places where religion stood against science. I claimed - and still claim - that most of his list didn't support his point. He hasn't defended it. Now, as he raised the concerns, I hold that he should justify why he thinks they represent a conflict between religion and science. He hasn't done that. 

Generally, it is a sound principle that those making a positive assertion need to back up their claim. To claim, as you in effect are doing here, that the burden of proof isn't on the claimant is not the normal way of discussing.

If you bring up other examples, I'll look at them. But remember what the question I'm arguing is: that there is a conflict between religion and science. Also, as a reminder, Jo498 spesifically pointed out that there is a problem, but that it is a modern phenomenon, and generally found in modern, evangelical American Christianity. Examples from that area are, thus, already a given.

You've certainly written "more" than me, but it more or less entirely misses the point. Lack of quantity is not what makes it a dodge, the failure to meaningfully address my point, combined with non-sequiturs and incorrect accusations is. This entire dive into "soft sciences" and homosexuality, for instance, is a bizarre response with no relevance to what I'm saying. 

In as few words as possible, let me try to map out again how we got to this point of contention:

The topic of religion and science in conflict led to a pointing out of several religious rules that are based on nothing more than assertion by some religious sects. This led to many pointing out that the 'conflict' between religion and science, ethically, is that non-religious ethics considers scientific fact/knowledge to be a valuable input, while religious ethics frequently considers it irrelevant (and that this leads it to a bunch of bad ethical conclusions, from a non-religious ethical perspective). Further, non-religious ethics can in many cases point to the use of knowledge to explain its reasoning (some form of consulting fact to know how to meet an ethical objective), while in many cases religious ethics relies on mere assertion and offers no justification.

You, disputing this last point, argued that there is justification because God is not an assertion but a logical conclusion. Then you explained an argument that goes something like 'God must exist, God must have created man, God must intend man to live, therefore life is precious,' which offers some justification for some religions' position on life/abortion, which had been specifically mentioned.

I mentioned other issues which do not have this kind of argument behind them, in order to establish that the point of distinction between non-religious based ethics and religious based ethics still stands- that the former can, in many cases, show reasoning guided by knowledge, while the latter, in many cases, relies on assertion.

I specifically chose issues that I felt no ethical view which relies on knowledge input would arrive at (there are no facts you would combine with ethical considerations to reach those conclusions, and indeed I think you'd reach opposite conclusions), and for which I felt there would be no remotely logically sound apologetics of the sort you offered on the question of life. The same holds for many of the items on Stubby's list.

And we've really not advanced beyond that point.

[Rorshach]

 

I specifically chose issues that I felt no ethical view which relies on knowledge input would arrive at (there are no facts you would combine with ethical considerations to reach those conclusions, and indeed I think you'd reach opposite conclusions), and for which I felt there would be no remotely logically sound apologetics of the sort you offered on the question of life. The same holds for many of the items on Stubby's list.

And we've really not advanced beyond that point.

And yet, even if you are correct (and I think the bolded part is correct, btw), you are, in claiming this, still not grasping the point. The point is that science will not tell you what to do in these situations. Science, left alone, cannot infer what you should think. 

Let's take the "killing infidels" agian. What input should science have? Logic would have input. Theology would. Sociology would. Science? What do you reckon scinence should say?

Science, in itself, doesn't say anything about value of life, or differing standards to which people hold themselves. So science, in this instance, is of no help when discussing the topic. And thus, even though the conflict is with religion, it is not science that is the opposer. Other considerations take that place. 

Point being, if you want to posit a conflict between science and religion, you actually need to show that it is science that opposes the undesired religious view. Not logic, philosophy, "softer sciences" etc - science itself is what you need. 

And that is what I contend that you and Stubby haven't shown. 

[Altherion]

So, yes, faith and religion affect people's behavior. But so do other things. Economic development, globalization, and advancement of accessible public education all reduce the hold of religions on their followers. This is why some countries, like Iran, ban these cultural exports from the Western world. Just like communism in China and Russia was not ended by gun fires and canons, but by gradual erosion of ideological rigidity through trade and global interactions, it is my belief that the proper tool to combat extremist Islamic sects is through inclusion, dialogue, and embracing the greater Muslim population into the global community. In the arena of competing ideologies, the ones that champion self-determination, individual choices, and personal responsibilities tend to win out over doctrinally rigid views of morality and ethics. With this, we might see the modern Islamic branches undergo the same cultural transformation that Christianity and Judaism underwent decades ago.

This view does mean that the onus is on the Muslims to change their behavior such that there is a pressure on their faith leaders to change the religious views, the same way that divorce became mainstream in Protestant faiths. Change the culture, and the way that people want to lead their lives, and their religions will follow, or those religions will dwindle into irrelevance.

I'm not sure that the progression of events that tamed Christianity in Western nations (note that it's not tame worldwide) is reproducible -- it was a product of a specific set of circumstances. Capitalism, globalization, etc. appear to be dominant today, but it's not obvious that this will continue to be the case. Religion may be a fairy tale (much, though not all, of the Abrahamic tradition certainly looks that way from the point of view of somebody who was not raised as a believer), but the things offered as replacements are no less fantastical. Communism claimed to offer a society in which people would effectively build heaven on Earth. This would have been nice, but what it actually provided was a bizarre mix of bureaucracy, feudalism, militarism and a mockery of democracy.

The same is true of the Western ideology. Self-determination, individual choices, etc. would be really nice... but these are limited in extent for all but the elite and extremely limited for the poor. The principal value and driving force of the entire system is avarice -- the lucky few who manage to accumulate enough wealth can join the elite and even those who are less fortunate (but still well off) can count on a comfortable existence. The obvious problem is that avarice is by definition insatiable. For a few decades, the circumstances were such that it was in the best interest of the elite for the rest of society to fall into the "comfortable" category, but those days are long gone.

Basically, there is no guarantee that Western ideology will triumph in the end. It's great in the short to medium term, but has significant long term consequences. The matter of avarice is perhaps the most obvious, but there are others. For example, consider children. Raising a child goes against practically every value in the ideology. It's not just avarice that is impacted (although children are expensive), but self-determination, individual choices, etc. are also severely curtailed -- and all of this for an unknowable return. Of course, some people still have children for various reasons (mostly biology and the remnants of religion and other traditional values), but nowhere near enough for growth (in fact, in many countries not even enough for replacement). The solution the elites have come up with (immigration, legal and otherwise) helps in the short term, but exacerbates the problem of avarice and, amusingly enough, imports people who are quite religious. It also doesn't help with growth -- as I've said before, the religious, traditional regions are quite dominant in that regard.

TLDR: It's not at all clear who exactly will dwindle into irrelevance. Modern science fiction that discusses the future of Earth generally has religion as an afterthought and an extension of Western values as default, but it's entirely possible that 200 years from now, we will be remembered as a decadent, amoral culture that wielded immense power, but was ultimately not viable.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Science, in itself, doesn't say anything about value of life, or differing standards to which people hold themselves. So science, in this instance, is of no help when discussing the topic. And thus, even though the conflict is with religion, it is not science that is the opposer. Other considerations take that place. 

I don't think anyone is claiming that. There is a difference between saying science directly provides moral judgement values and science can help provide information that an individual or group use to help shape their moral judgement values.

Go back and read the short example I provided i.e. abortion.

[Stubby]

Rorshach,

I asked you a question.  Answer it and I'll "unpack" the point I have been making (for the umpteenth time in this thread, I might add).

Simply running around going "Stubby has to prove all of his examples before I'll admit I'm wrong" has not addressed your complete failure to miss my point.  The question I asked you was designed to do just that. It was the first step in "unpacking", so your allegation that I am somehow avoiding some sort of key point in your position is baseless.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will clarify my question:

How did we (humanity) arrive at the modern position of being able to perform a dilation and curettage, generally safely?

[Rorshach]

Edit: this is a response to Tywin et al

I read your example and responded to it earler. If you found the answer severly lacking, I suggest you explain why.

Also, for the record, I am asking for examples of how science provide information, for instance related to the list Stubby provided. So far, nothing has been forthcoming.

 

[Rorshach]

Rorshach,

I asked you a question.  Answer it and I'll "unpack" the point I have been making (for the umpteenth time in this thread, I might add).

Simply running around going "Stubby has to prove all of his examples before I'll admit I'm wrong" has not addressed your complete failure to miss my point.  The question I asked you was designed to do just that. It was the first step in "unpacking", so your allegation that I am somehow avoiding some sort of key point in your position is baseless.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will clarify my question:

How did we (humanity) arrive at the modern position of being able to perform a dilation and curettage, generally safely?

Why, by cutting up corpses and looking at them. Like, what happened in the religions middle ages. In the religious universities. By religious people.

Your question, unpacked, as you see, does not make a whiff of sense to me. I ope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to suspect you have a few misconceptions about the middle ages, and scientific history in general. Subscribing to a few myths, as it were.

Also, the part I've bolded is childish. And, since you haven't answered my post with examples as to how science conflicts with religion in your examples, premature.