The Religion word

[LBird]

peelbrow wrote:

Religion is not worth the effort or worry. Science is the ONLY way – all the rest is simply superstition.

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that science is a modern religion, and that the most superstitious version of it is 'materialism'?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Simply telling them that their belief is based on their cultural, political system is generally not enough explanation of itself, so any evidence based info would be beneficial. Whether that exists is another matter and is the reason for my post.

The problem here, SP, is that what counts as 'evidence based info' is tied up in one's theory.We could have a discussion about 'ontology/metaphysics'… but the 'materialists' will just refer us to the rocks.The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.For them, 'evidence based info' comes from handling (or merely listening to) the rocks. That is the only practice they need, and that practice determines theory.

[peelbrow]

LBird wrote:

peelbrow wrote:

Religion is not worth the effort or worry. Science is the ONLY way – all the rest is simply superstition.

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that science is a modern religion, and that the most superstitious version of it is 'materialism'?

That's  just bandying about with words. It certainly won't cure cancer or find other forms of life in the Universe as  the human  brain will through science, and that's my last word on this subject.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.

BULLSHIT

[DJP]

[LBird]

peelbrow wrote:

LBird wrote:

peelbrow wrote:

Religion is not worth the effort or worry. Science is the ONLY way – all the rest is simply superstition.

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that science is a modern religion, and that the most superstitious version of it is 'materialism'?

That's  just bandying about with words. It certainly won't cure cancer or find other forms of life in the Universe as  the human  brain will through science, and that's my last word on this subject.

The usual refusal to discuss by the 'materialists'. No wonder the openly religious thinkers are streets ahead of us.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.

BULLSHIT

Yeah, it's always about the 'material', even if it is just poo.

[Anonymous]

Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?  

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?

Vin. Why don't you try telling us your theory that determines your 'facts'?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?

Vin. Why don't you try telling us your theory that determines your 'facts'?

Deja Vu?

[SocialistPunk]

Nice to see some constructive contributions here. From the lack of attention to my request and considering the personal mud slinging, I am led to conclude that there is no easy answer to my question, #400.LBird came closer with his reference to theory and metaphysics.

LBird wrote:

The problem here, SP, is that what counts as 'evidence based info' is tied up in one's theory.We could have a discussion about 'ontology/metaphysics'…

It seems that this area of enquiry is a complex one that involves biology, psychology and philosophy. No wonder forum and SPGB members are loathed to discuss this topic and instead opt for the easy, science beats all trump card.For clarification, I am not religious and I don't believe in a creator.

[rodshaw]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi rodshaw,I already have that one in the bag, so to speak. What I was looking for, and it may not be available, was some sort of actual historical, anthropology based explanation or addition.There is a danger that this thread may end up tangled with the one on socialism, morality and logic, and I'd rather it not as my enquiry was specifically about the religious view that morality, ethics, values etc came from a creator. Simply telling them that their belief is based on their cultural, political system is generally not enough explanation of itself, so any evidence based info would be beneficial. Whether that exists is another matter and is the reason for my post.

Sorry to see you've had no direct replies to your question. I'd have been quite interested myself.I suppose the kind of evidence you need depends on who your target religious person is. Some of them may be won over quite easily by pointing out some no-brainer condradictions inherent in belief in a creator (e.g. If God made man to love and worship him, why did it take so long for humans to appear?; are the people who died before Christianity saved?; are Vikings still in Valhalla or did they move to heaven? at what stage of evolution did the soul appear?..etc.). Some will stick to their beliefs whatever evidence of an alternative source of morality you have, and some (I suppose the ones you have in mind) will be up for a right good philosophical debate, and may or may not be open to persuasion.But in my mind is the fact that whatever evidence you have, you can’t prove a negative, at least not here, i.e. that morality doesn’t come from a creator. All you can do is present some evidence that it may not be so. Which leads us back to science (using the word in its broad sense of knowledge) – i.e. what do we know (the science bit) and what is speculation or wishful thinking (the religious bit)?

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks for being constructive rodshaw. I agree with you that the religious community is varied and so what will do it for some will have no effect on others and some will not accept any evidence no matter how credible.I've done a little bit of searching the net on this and it does seem there is no hard evidence to say when a sense of morality may have developed in human pre-history, and that it requires a number of science based disciplines to unravel the mystery. My gut feeling on the topic is that morality developed as a consequence of human co-operative necessities, a sort of social glue that moves with the cultural norms of the time. As such it is likely to predate organised religions. But I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

"My gut feeling on the topic is that morality developed as a consequence of human co-operative necessities, a sort of social glue that moves with the cultural norms of the time. As such it is likely to predate organised religions. But I could be wrong."It looks pretty spot on for me.

[Anonymous]

I think I have asked this question before but have never received a reply. Is 'morality' confined only to human beings?  If so, why? I have an open mind obout this but it is all very confusing.  I may well agree with it but it has not been defined. To me 'morality' suggests an objective authority. An authority to  which a 'moral' person can refer to justify the condemnation of those who disagree.     

[Author]

Posts