dimreepr

Yet there is still a lot of heartache that the Pope (and others like him) are directly responsible for and which (were it not for religion) they could stop.

Or maybe find another excuse, but how is that religions fault?

Are you shifting the goalpost, or conceding?

 

Neither.

The Pope condemning contraception is not "in the name of religion". It is religion.

How can it be?

Catholicism may be the largest version of religion but it’s by no means the only one, therefore the Popes views can’t represent all of religion.

So, for example, the Catholic church (among others) is trying to teach the emotional stability and tranquillity that comes from having unwanted children.

 

Seriously?

Things done in the name of religion doesn’t always equate with its intention. If a recipe isn’t followed properly the result can be unpalatable.

New testament: nearly 2 millennia ago, Greek.

 

Torah, 1st half of Old Testament: compiled 3 millennia ago, in Hebrew, during the times of David and Solomon, but includes Moses/Exodus from 300 years prior.

 

Greek translations of Tanakh/OT about 2 millennia ago, which serve as basis for most modern translations.

 

Epic of Gilgamesh: 4 millennia ago, cuneiform.

Indeed, however that doesn’t give anyone carte blanche for complete dismissal, context often allows limited understanding and it certainly doesn’t mean the books are wrong.

If an old text says that the world is like this or like that then what possible difference could its age make to it's truth or falsity?

Time: “I’m so gay”

If that was written in 1940/50 it would mean I’m happy but a few years later it would mean I’m homosexual.

Culture: “I had faggots for lunch”

In one culture that would mean I ate an offal meatball in another it means I attacked a homosexual.

To add to the ambiguity translate the above into a language that has no word, or concept, for an offal meatball.

Given that how can anyone possibly fully understand a book written in a different language and culture, centuries ago?

Dave

 

I assumed that anyone involved in this discussion would be interested enough to examine the facts. Just stating your views leaves me nothing to say.

 

Okay. you don't believe science and religion can be reconciled. Enough said.

 

Really what led to my remark was the fact that you have made all sorts of statements about Buddhism on the basis of no knowledge of it, and when people do this on any topic whatsoever I lose interest in talking to them. If we're not taking the matter seriously, as a real scientist, philosopher or truth-seeker would, then it's not worth pursuing.

 

The truth is, if you care to look, that you have no idea whether science and religion can be reconciled. Your comment stating that Buddhism is only relevant to those who grow up in a Buddhist culture shows to me that you have no interest in religion let alone enough knowledge to have the right to an opinion on its relationship with science.

 

Yet you fight for your opinions. I don't want to fight, so will leave it there.

Since I haven’t mentioned Buddhism in this thread, perhaps you should read again and maybe think again, before deciding what opinions I have.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?”

 

It is a simple idea. If a human being does NOT want to create, or chose their own government, then not only are they lazy, but they are cowards as well.

There’s a huge disparity between creating a government and choosing one; just because the question is simple doesn’t mean the answer isn’t complicated.

I think perhaps you’re confused as to the intent of that quote; does the right of a society/country to self governance equate to an individual’s right to it?

Then why join the debate? Did you expect us to all fall at your feet without question? Or do you think an ad hom is a valid argument?

More than you it seems, given this rebuttal.

If an old text says that the world is like this or like that then what possible difference could its age make to it's truth or falsity?

Time won’t change the reality but it will change our understanding of it.

F=MA is knocking on now but I doubt that it will never need replacing.

The truth won’t change but, over time, the letters might.

Would you rather the sages changed their doctrine in every century? Would this make it seem more plausible or less? To me it would look like a proclamation of ignorance and uncertainty

See above.

It would be inevitable that an ability to reconcile science and religion will depend on knowing a lot about both, while for most people their interest lies in just one or the other. How long would it take to learn enough physics, never mind biology, psychology and so forth, to talk competently about the relationship between science and religion? Why would it take any less time to learn enough about religion to talk competently about this relationship?

The two are fundamentally apposed, more knowledge will only further our understanding of that simple truth.

Maybe part of the problem is that science often assumes that religion is easy to understand, so easy that without any proper study it can be understood. I would say it's a lot easier to understand than quantum physics but it's certainly no stroll in the park.

TBH I don’t think science really cares.

The only real point of reference is philosophy and both science and, to some extent, religion have, more or less, left that behind.

I don't know; but it would be interesting to ask them.

Or does my right to free healthcare, for petty issues, harm my children's right to free life saving surgery?

 

I think eventually it must, when a case can be made, and won, for expensive cosmetic surgery (not included: as a result of injury or birth defect), then a collapse seems inevitable; even the NHS can’t last if they always live beyond the budget.

So maybe that conversation would be not so much interesting as excruciating.

Nice post.

The founding fathers IMO set up an almost perfect system for that time and culture; we need to understand why and apply the wisdom to the modern world (a task beyond me but I’m sure it can be/needs to be done).

Don't try to understand too quickly, now you've read them go back to what you do understand and build on that, remember understand the lesson you're on before you move to the next.

As to the topic question All you really need is passion so yes.

This site is very good place to start on your journey, just ask and the kind members here will be happy to help.

Enjoy...

obedience?

Very good question and a little tricky because there are rules and people have used them to lord it over others but then all societies have those problems.

Religion is clearly concerned to some extent with emotions. It has an emotional appeal to many people and many others are averse to it for emotional reasons. It deals in love, compassion, consolation, forgiveness, sorrow, pain and happiness and so forth. .

 

But this is of no interest to science. If we are trying to reconcile religion and science then we need to look at what it teaches that is relevant to science. Emotions would have nothing to do with this.

 

We would need to look at how it explains existence, consciousness, time and space, life and death, mind and matter and so forth. In other words, we would have to venture into metaphysics. This is where science and religion meet head-on, and where they must be reconciled it if it ever to happen. Here we can forget about emotions and get down to the mathematics.

I don’t think the two can be resolved as a whole, sure you may be able to find a convoluted way to reconcile two aspects and marry them and maybe even a few threads intertwine.

The biggest obstacle to any meaningful reconciliation is the texts are out of their time and culture.

So the only practical way to satisfactorily tackle the question is emotionally not easy without cognitive dissonance.

Yes but it hurt.

Cognitive dissonance seems to be playing a major part in this question.

Protection from the wacko’s with easy access to guns is easier access to bigger guns.

Cognitive dissonance seems to be playing a major part in this question.

So was mine, but with a rather more inclusive "we".

If we all fight for the rights of those less fortunate than ourselves we make the whole world better.

I couldn’t agree more but I wonder which ones would make a better world and which hinders a better world.

For instance does my right to a pension supersede an African villager’s right to clean water?

Or does my right to free healthcare, for petty issues, harm my children's right to free life saving surgery?

Dimreepr;

 

My consideration is that there are two fundamental rights that other rights stem from.

 

The first is the right to preserve the "self". This is an innate right that is recognized universally and is evidenced by the survival instincts in every specie. This does not mean that someone can not kill you, justified or otherwise, it just means that you have the right to fight back and to defend yourself -- it is expected. This right is often extended to include the larger "self" -- the immediate family -- your spouse and children.

 

But this right can also be interpreted as a right to defend your extended family, or your home, or your favorite team, or school, or business, or neighborhood, or religion, or country. It can be extended to include anything that you put the word "my" in front of, so I think this is where we lose our perspective of what is "fundamental".

That’s not so much a right as an instinct, that’s like fighting for the right to breath.

The second right, is that we have the right to expect that our rights match our responsibilities. This is the basis of ownership. Back in the day, if you claimed an area, drove off the wild animals, built a cabin, and worked the land, you could become the owner of that land. Taking responsibility for the land gave you the right to own it, and there are some places where this still applies today. In this time, it is more like paying the mortgage gives you ownership of the house, but it is still a case of rights and responsibilities matching.

If you build a boat, then it is your boat; if you buy a car, then it is your car. You can not be held responsible if your neighbor gets in an accident with his car, because you have no right to tell him how to drive, but if he gets in an accident while driving your car, you may very well be responsible. We can only be responsible for things that we have authority and control over, so we must have that right to be responsible.

I am not sure that privilege has anything to do with fundamental rights. If a king is a good king and is responsible for his people, then he can have all of the privilege that he wants -- it won't matter. But if he is a bad king, and his people are not taken care of, then he can go without any privileges at all and still end up being overthrown. The right to lead people means that one has to take responsibility for those people, or eventually that right will be lost to another.

Ownership is far from being a fundamental human right; “Arguing over who owns the land is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog” - Crocodile Dundee

I didn’t expect such a question from you but, OK, let me ask you this, if not for emotional stability/tranquillity what is religion trying to teach?

Pointless, given that he has never denied his part, and especially, not letting others forget theirs.

Agreed.

Sorry folks I had intended to provide links in the OP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33533264

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr%C3%B6ning

IMO I don’t really think a literal reconciliation is possible, empirical doesn’t relate to emotional even when the study is of emotional responses; all you need to reconcile the two is cognitive dissonance.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the United States is also a world leader in capital punishment. More than policing standards or guns I think there is a psychological issue at play. In the United States many people feel that others both deserve to die and that killing those who deserve to die is a heroic act. Whether the number this year is 601 or eventually balloons to over a thousand doesnt really matter. Each instance will require debate to prove the that the dead person didn't deserve it and not the other way around. The total number of dead alone falls on deaf ears. How many of the people killed by police this year didn't have it coming is the only number that might capture the majorities attention. Even then we must keep in mind that the bar for having it coming is very low. Talking back, being guiltly of any crime ever, or failing to accurately follow directions is generally enough for someone to be seen as responsible for their own death at the hands of police.

No one deserves to die, outside of Hollywood.

What do you think?