The weakness of science without a belief system.

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Sun May 6, 2018, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

First, we shall start with a quote:

1) “Lest we forget, the birth of modern physics and cosmology was achieved by Galileo, Kepler and Newton breaking free not from the close confining prison of faith (all three were believing Christians, of one sort or another) but from the enormous burden of the millennial authority of Aristotelian science. The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was not a revival of Hellenistic science but its final defeat.”

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849387-atheist-delusions-the-christian-revolution-and-its-fashionable-enemies

Next, my own views on the matter:


Science concerns itself with knowledge of the physical world. The scientific search for knowledge can encompass both positive and negative aspects.
A positive because scientific discoveries have improved the lives of all of us, and a negative because scientific discoveries have also put us at huge risk of nuclear annihilation and a global warming that could transform this planet into a place unsuitable for humans.

Scientists have discovered vaccines, but scientists have also created or weaponized organisms to more easily kill large numbers.


Nuclear energy has been harnessed by scientists even as the poisonous by-products, some with a 50,000 year half-life, contaminate the earth.

It is not that science is innately evil, or that the pursuit of scientific knowledge inevitably leads to greater loss of life and destruction. It is that humans are repsonsible for the ways in which they decide to use that knowledge.

[marylandblue]

1. Other than the quote you started with

How is this related to religion?

[guillaumeb]

2. Religion and science both spring from a desire for information.

And a desire to understand.

This desire for knowledge and understanding is a feature of human sentience.

[marylandblue]

4. Well that narrows it down.

[guillaumeb]

19. A commonality.

A search for knowledge. How that knowledge is used is another matter.

[marylandblue]

24. a lot of things are "desire for knowledge."

So the mere fact that have this feature in common is not very remarkable and it doesn't explain what your post is about, which still seems to have nothing to do with religion at all.

[msongs]

5. more likely that religion is the supression of actual information other than made up

opinion

[guillaumeb]

20. Your opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Does religion in general spring from a desire for information and understanding?

For instance, what would you think of a religion that starts its holy book with the punishment of humanity for seeking the knowledge of good and evil? I'd say that particular religion would be acting against the instincts of human sentience, and looking for control of people, instead.

Maybe you ought to say religion can spring from a desire for information and understanding.

[guillaumeb]

48. I would say that religion expresses the desire for understanding.

Not understanding the physical world, but understanding our place and understanding how man relates to a deity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. That presumes the existence of a deity

Not several deities, or no deity. And yet it's religions that are responsible for planting the idea of deities in minds in the first place.

What do you mean by "our place", if not the physical world? It is like "we should know our place (in a hierarchy under a presumed deity)"? This is why it seems to be more about control than understanding.

[guillaumeb]

61. "Our place" as it refers to our relationship with a deity.

And of course religion generally assumes/presumes the existence of a deity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. So for religions to have any bearing on reality, we need another way to find out

if any deities exist. Without that, they are just suppositions.

So far, no evidence. Religion seems to be built on sand (though it is a good source of metaphors). And any 'understanding' they are aimed at producing are just understandings of the ideas of the people who first proposed the deities of each religion.

[trotsky]

92. I've asked you many many times but you've refused to answer this question:

In religion, how do you know when you've reached a new understanding? How can you confirm it?

If you can't, because religion is "different" and doesn't rely on things like "validation" or "accuracy," then a follow-up question: how is religion any different than just make-believe?

[guillaumeb]

99. How did you know that atheism was correct?

How did you confirm it?

[trotsky]

107. See, this again shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is.

I wish you'd actually listen to all the atheists who keep trying to tell you otherwise.

It's not that I "know" atheism is "correct," it's that no theist has provided any evidence that their claims are true.

That's all one needs to be an atheist: not accepting the claims of theists.

Now, how about you answer my question? Surprise me and engage in actual dialog. I did. Now it's your turn.

[guillaumeb]

110. I think that you are avoiding calling your belief a belief.

And that is your right.

[trotsky]

111. I don't give a shit what you think.

You clearly don't care that you're trying to define atheism for atheists.

I tried to dialog. You spat in my face. Again. Such "Christian" behavior.

[guillaumeb]

112. Such creativity.

[trotsky]

113. You go on being what you think a Christian should be, gil.

I'm quite happy to let everyone judge your religion based on your behavior.

[guillaumeb]

114. Such adherence to the Commandment.

[trotsky]

116. Seriously, WTF does that even mean?

You're just gonna spout your lame-ass "11th commandment" meme attempt whenever anyone points out believers behaving badly?

You will never censor criticism of religion, gil. Never.

[Mariana]

118. I think Gil's imaginary 11th Commandment needs an update.

Gil's original Commandment: Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=277262

I won't get into the idiotic and dishonest idea that criticism equals prohibition. Was your post in response to a positive post about religion? No. Nevertheless, Gil invokes his ridiculous Commandment. Clearly he needs to review it, and perhaps revise it.

[trotsky]

119. We can dispense with all the nonsense by simply stating what we all know:

Gil doesn't like reading bad things about religion here, so he will invent whatever foolishness he needs to try and either silence the criticism, or stigmatize those making it.

[Mariana]

120. With the encouragement of numerous personal messages

asking him to do more of what he's doing, and praising his efforts here.

I have to wonder if his legions of fans actually read his posts. Does the amount of praise he receives depend upon the quality of his posts, or is it given on a piecework basis?

[trotsky]

121. Ah yes, the vast hordes of believers cheering him on via PMs...

who somehow can't be bothered to click "Rec" on any of his threads.

[guillaumeb]

122. And some will keep verifying the correctness of the initial 11th Commandment

observation.

[trotsky]

124. I honestly don't understand.

To make a meme stick, you've got to clearly communicate what exactly it is you're trying to say with it. Are you simply going to respond with "11th CoMmaNDmEnT HuRR dUrR" every time someone disagrees with you? That's what it seems like.

Right now it just looks like some kind of inside joke punchline that no one but you gets, so I'm afraid everyone is simply laughing AT you rather than WITH you. But perhaps you're used to that by now.

[guillaumeb]

125. Reread my post on the 11th Commandment.

As to your rather overused personal attack against me, I understand why you feel the need to do it.

[trotsky]

127. You poor thing.

https://xkcd.com/1984/

[trotsky]

91. It's not.

But creating a false equivalence in order to justify their fragile religious beliefs is what some theists just feel a need to do.

[Eko]

3. Sounds like Religion created a prison for Galileo.

Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings[83] in September 1632. He finally arrived in February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged. Throughout his trial, Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism. In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.[84]

The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on 22 June. It was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[85]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[86] On the following day, this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[87]

[thewhollytoast]

6. And let's not forget Bruno

The Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.

Toast

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/brun-f16.html

[Major Nikon]

17. We must forget about all the ways in which religion hamstrings science

Lest we face the wrath that comes with violating the lesser known "11th commandment".

[guillaumeb]

21. I recently read a biography of Galileo's daughter.

In his writings to her, he did not see it as you described.

[Mariana]

27. How did he see it? nt.

[sharedvalues]

7. Nah. False. Empiricism is science.

It’s not that religion is inherently evil, its that some religions, like many American Christian sects, coopt religion to pursue power for billionaires.

[longship]

8. So what!?

And religion???

BTW, science has fucking nothing to do with faith! Science is about facts, not faith.

[guillaumeb]

22. A search for knowledge.

[longship]

30. Not too sure that's found in religion too often.

[guillaumeb]

34. Much depends on who is searching. eom

[longship]

36. I agree with that.

But I don't normally wish to replace a mystery with another mystery. (At least not deliberately.)

It's true that science has mysteries, some deep mysteries. But the methodology of science has a purpose to solve those mysteries with models that eliminate the mysteries.

To my thinking, religion seems to like to keep the mysteries. They often say that "god works in mysterious ways." And when things don't work out, "His will be done." That is a rather huge statement of keeping the mystery.

(I don't see this as a statement of NOMA, because religion is fairly insistent on treading into the science domain. So, NOMA is, in practice, rubbish.)

So maybe you see part of the problem.

My best to you.

[guillaumeb]

47. I do not see "religion" as of necessity treading into science.

But some Biblical literalists do.

[longship]

52. Well, I call that a significant problem, Gil.

It's time to call out fundamentalism wherever it resides. What's worse is that the GOP has been allied with outright theocrats for about an entire generation, ever since Jerry Falwell's Morale Majority (which was neither).

Visit Right Wing Watch some day.

I don't give a darn what people believe except when they start using government to impose their beliefs on others. Above all, they seem to be intent on treading on science specifically. That really pisses me off.

[yallerdawg]

9. Another apt quote:

“I can honestly say that there are many forms of atheism that I find far more admirable than many forms of Christianity or of religion in general. But atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance, made turbulent by storms of strident self-righteousness, is as contemptible as any other form of dreary fundamentalism. And it is sometimes difficult, frankly, to be perfectly generous in one’s response to the sort of invective currently fashionable among the devoutly undevout, or to the sort of historical misrepresentations it typically involves.”

I'd say more, but my favorite Atheist is starting up on HBO (9CT)!

[Lordquinton]

11. That quote makes no sense

Tell me, what form of atheism is admirable, what isn't?

[Voltaire2]

13. Obviously the stfu form.

[Lordquinton]

40. We may never know

Simple questions are often too difficult to answer.

[Major Nikon]

16. There's only one kind of atheism

So we are told.

[Mariana]

28. Yes, and all atheists are identical and interchangeable. nt.

[Lordquinton]

42. We are told

But now there are acceptable kinds, apparently.

[guillaumeb]

23. Ouch!!!!

[yallerdawg]

25. I like "The Devoutly Undevout" as a fundamentalist descriptor!

Goes well with that expectation of "Godless Enlightenment" which may come - someday?

[Mariana]

29. Why did you put "Godless Enlightenment" in quotes?

You seem to be the only person who has used that particular phrase. Why don't you define it for us, since you're the one who made it up?

[guillaumeb]

32. And the concept of atheistic fundamentalists arises as well.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218170618

[Major Nikon]

35. Along with subliteracy

[Mariana]

37. Why are you linking to a post from 2014

that was put up by a poster who's had his posting privileges revoked multiple times? What does that have to do with this thread?

[guillaumeb]

49. Why are you discussing the internal workings of DU?

[Mariana]

51. I'm not discussing the internal workings of DU.

Why are you linking to an OP from 2014 that was posted by a banned troll? What does that have to do with this thread?

[guillaumeb]

60. Yes, you are.

Is this an attempt on your part to refer to the result of an internal DU matter?

If not, I see no reason for your repeated references to the results of an internal DU matter. The TOS specifically states that we are not to do so.

[Major Nikon]

64. Lecturing someone about the TOS is also covered

As is interfering with forum moderation, neither of which has presented much of an impediment to your incessant whining about such subjects.

Which begs the question, if it bothers you so much you can't let it go, why haven't you alerted on it? Or perhaps you have already and after failing to convince anyone of that nonsense have resorted to airing your grievances publicly.

[guillaumeb]

69. Why bother?

I personally prefer that whatever is said be readable.

[Major Nikon]

72. So why bother whining incessantly about it?

[guillaumeb]

73. Simply pointing out the obvious double standard.

[Major Nikon]

74. Obvious to whom?

Besides yourself

[guillaumeb]

75. Obvious to all except possibly those who engage in it.

[Major Nikon]

76. So how do you know you don't engage in it?

[guillaumeb]

77. That is for you to point out.

[Major Nikon]

78. No, it's not

At least if I want to actually follow the TOS. YMMV.

[guillaumeb]

79. Incorrect reading on your part.

[Major Nikon]

80. You stole my line!

[Mariana]

65. If the administrators didn't want anyone to know

that a particular poster was banned, they wouldn't make that information publicly available. However, they do make that information publicly available. For example, here is the publicly available profile of one of the incarnations of the troll in question:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=189631

As you can plainly see, it says "Posting Privileges Revoked".

Acknowledging that isn't in any way interfering with the decisions made by the administrators, or arguing with them, or anything else that violates the rules of this site.

Please, do alert on my post if you feel it's inappropriate. If you won't do that, why don't you answer the questions I asked you?

Why are you linking to an OP from 2014 that was posted by a banned troll? What does that have to do with this thread?

[Rob H.]

38. Linking to an OP by an anti-atheist troll?

LOL, good one!

[guillaumeb]

50. Anti-atheist? Not at all.

[Rob H.]

68. Dude. He logged in under his wife's name

just to post anti-atheist articles and start arguments with atheist posters here and wound up getting booted from DU less than 18 hours later.

Think about this, too: even when he was pretending to be someone else he still couldn’t bring himself to not come out swinging and taking shots at atheism and atheists. The really hilarious part of it all, though, is that he thought nobody would recognize him the instant he started posting.

[guillaumeb]

71. And exactly how would you know this?

An interesting accusation that you made. But it lacks something.

[Rob H.]

83. Everything you need to know is available

in this post, including links to other people having figured out what was going on.

[guillaumeb]

98. Right.

So an assertion becomes a fact.

[NeoGreen]

100. The ppr & ffr...

...are the "assertion" that makes it fact, around here on DU.

[Rob H.]

102. Exactly

For those of us who’ve dealt with that poster over the years, his posting style is blindingly obvious and admin agreed.

[Rob H.]

103. Wrong.

Evidence led to a conclusion, which led to consequences.

[Major Nikon]

41. Sure, because the lack of belief requires belief

Now it also includes doctrine and dogma which must be strictly adhered.

So please tell me what book I'd need to follow devoutly. I would say the dictionary, but then that would utterly destroy the false equivalence you've worked so hard to build. Surely there must be some other official reference I could use.

[marylandblue]

44. Origin of the Species eom

[Major Nikon]

45. Doesn't sound nearly as interesting as stories about talking snakes and donkeys

Just sayin'

[marylandblue]

46. Yes, Darwin had a problem with that

He ony wrote about species that actually existed. If he had written on the evolution of Leviathan maybe we would have such a problem getting evolution taught in schools.

[PatrickforO]

10. My perspective on this is

one of Hermetic Alchemy - the transmutation of the soul - in a metaphorical sense turning it from lead to gold. As a student of the Kabbalah, I see reflections of the various states of spirit/mind/body represented by the Sephiroth and the paths between them in current events.

I also see Qliphothic reflections in current events.

It is interesting that several of the rather repetitive quotations on this link speak of nihilism filling the vacuum as religion dies. I have always thought of nihilism as a modern cop out - a sort of lazy pretension of intellectualism.

To me, whether we consider the universe meaningless or not, it exists. Whether we consider our own lives meaningless or not, we exist. Our very existence is meaning. My favorite existentialist, Viktor Frankl spoke of this when he invented Logotherapy after his internment and survival in Auschwitz. Why, he asked, does a person who seems at death's door survive while another person who seems much healthier die quickly?

In the end he came out of it with the belief that we create our own meaning through our love for and devotion to those we love, and perhaps to causes greater than ourselves.

In Hermetic thought, there are spiritual laws that operate whether we believe in them or not. The Kybalion numbers these laws at seven.

The two greatest illusions to which we humans fall prey are the quest for power and the quest for wealth. Our whole current industrialized capitalist system is predicated on those illusions. Indeed, our species of sapiens is in a race with time. We cannot bring the world into balance without first bringing ourselves into balance, and we cannot bring ourselves into balance without shedding greed and self-centeredness.

Salvation is collective - a few of us seek as individuals to attain higher states, perhaps what may be called 'enlightenment,' but most will not seek it actively, but merely learn a little each time around the wheel of rebirth. Finally, when our entire species - all human souls - have become one with the Divine, then we will find ourselves...elsewhere.

It may be that capitalism is the childhood of humanity - our species' prepubescence. In terms of maturity, we have not yet even attained adolescence. And yet, if we are to preserve this world on which we live, breathe and have our being, then we must not only attain adolescence, but must go beyond that into adulthood, where we care for each other as one family.

One of my favorite authors, Dion Fortune, says that spiritual mastery in this plane of earth is necessary before we can rise to any other plane. She equates this life to a buoy in a boat race - we must guide our boat around the buoy before we can turn for home.

And, you know....we're doing a really shitty job steering that boat. We've got to get it back on course.

[DetlefK]

12. There are several misconceptions in your OP:

1. The scientific method came to be sometime in the 18th century. The methods of research before that don't qualify as "science" by today's standards:
- One method of science was conducting experiments to explore the unknown, but religion limited the researchers in their analysis of the results: Religion defined a priori a standard, which conclusions will be acceptable and which will be unacceptable. -> Theory over practice.
- The other method of science was to conduct research to confirm what was written in old books. If your experiment shows something else than what is written in the book, then your experiment is wrong. -> Theory over practice.

The revolutionary facet of the scientific method is to put practice over theory.



2. The Ancient Greeks did not do research per se. They were theorists, philosophers. Experiments were actually despised in Ancient Greece, because conducting an experiment meant that you were so stupid that you couldn't solve the problem by thinking alone.



3. Science does not provide ethical guidelines. Science has been used for good and for evil.
Religion DOES provide ethical guidelines and even prides itself about this. And yet, despite literally being a source of ethics, religion has ALSO been used for good and for evil.

Conclusion: The decision-making process of "good-vs-evil" does not depend on either science or religion.

[Major Nikon]

15. Even if you discount the inherent corruptibility of organized religion...

It's still a very poor source of ethics.

The same book that says to love your neighbor also says to murder or enslave your children. There's also no higher arbiter than god in which one can appeal for a rule change. This is by design.

[guillaumeb]

33. As to your own conclusion,

that depends on the individual.

[Major Nikon]

39. Sure, there are those who absolutely believe ethics can only come from an imaginary friend

They are without exception the creme-de-la-dum of religious extremists, but you are correct in that they do exist.

[Major Nikon]

14. Are you suggesting ethics can only come from our imaginary friends?

Because it sounds like that's what you are suggesting.

Does this logic also apply to organized religion which also has enormous potential as a tool for destruction or must we only consider the peaches and cream aspects of it for fear of violating the sacred "11th commandment"?

[Voltaire2]

18. Your religion destroyed the academic institutions

of the ancient world, deliberately and systematically, ushering in the stultified stagnant medieval culture.

1000 years later they were putting Copernicus’s great book on the proscribed list, and convicting Galileo of heresy.

They were and are fighting against the advancement of knowledge whenever it conflicts with their archaic “wisdom”.

[Major Nikon]

31. Fast forward to today...

[DetlefK]

54. What are you talking about?

In the ancient world, all research and philosophy was colored by religious and mystic concepts. There was no "pure" science for religion to corrupt.

Copernikus was proscribed by the Church because his astronomy contradicted ancient non-biblical astronomy: The ptolemaic and the chaldean model of the solar-system, both of which are Earth-centric.

What we know as "science" nowadays evolved gradually from ~1500 to ~1800 by first modifying and finally ditching religious concepts.
Religion is the grand-parent of science and neo-platonic magic is its parent.

[Voltaire2]

55. Well that is a bit of a straw man.

Your first paragraph is arguing a point I didn’t make.

Yes the church was enforcing adherence to one specific ancient cosmology, the one that fit with the biblical texts. That’s the point. First it destroyed the academic institutions and libraries, ushering in a millennia of intellectual stagnation. Then when new ideas started to appear in the 1500s it set about repressing them.

[Major Nikon]

56. You just don't get it

All that time organized religion was protecting us from the evils of science without morals. It's far better to remain dum as a sack of hammers than to let Satan take control of our learning institutions.

[DetlefK]

58. What academic institutions and libraries were destroyed by the Church?

[Major Nikon]

59. A better question is which ones weren't

The destruction of knowledge rarely has any other motivations besides religious. While Christianity certainly didn't invent book burning, they were more than willing to participate in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents#Books_of_Arianism_(after_Council_of_Nicaea)

[DetlefK]

88. That example you cite has nothing to do with your claim.

Your claim was that the Church has destroyed academic institutions and libraries. The example you cited is about the catholic branch suppressing another christian branch within the wider religion.

[Major Nikon]

94. It wasn't my claim

The example I provided wasn't singular and included many instances of the destruction of knowledge on behalf of the church.

[DetlefK]

95. It was.

See?
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282526

Your religion destroyed the academic institutions of the ancient world, deliberately and systematically, ushering in the stultified stagnant medieval culture.

Also, the examples at your link are either about heresy or not the fault of the Church (such as burning down the library of Antioch). None of the examples cites the Church destroying an academic institution.



As you insist on making up stuff, this discussion is finished for me. Have a nice day.

[Major Nikon]

96. You just linked to another DUer's post and pretended it was mine

So at least you finished on a hilarious note and should be commended for it.

[DetlefK]

105. My bad. Sorry.

[Major Nikon]

106. Happens to the best of us

[lapfog_1]

26. yup

I remember reading the history on how Galileo was arrested and confined to his house by those evil "Aristotelian scientists"!

[edhopper]

57. I am looking at America today

and what do we see as the main opposition to Science?

Who are overwhelmingly the Anti-Evolution, Anti-Climate Science crowd?

[guillaumeb]

62. I am looking at your statement

as referring specifically to some Biblical literalists. But to sat that they are all opposed to science is too simplistic.

Many accept much of the good that science has brought, while also accepting a literal view of the Bible.

[Major Nikon]

66. That's not what was said, but don't let that stop a good strawman rant

At some level all creationists favor superstition over science. The only difference is degree as not all of them agree as to what level their imaginary friend is involved. So while it may not be correct that flat earthers reject all forms of science, neither can it be said they are advocates. While those on the other side of the creationist spectrum who think the holy poltergeist started the big bang still reject alternate explanations based on reason and empirical observation.

[edhopper]

67. While those who are religious do not

necessarily oppose science.
The vast majority of those who oppose science are religious.
All people who accept a literal view of the Bible reject some science.
Religion it seems is a major, if not the major factor in the opposition to science.

There is no weakness in science without a belief system.

There is however a very big weakness in a belief system without science.

[guillaumeb]

70. Science divorced from morality

is what allows scientists to weaponize anthrax. Or experiment on inmates. The Tuskegee experience.

So yes, science divorced from morality and beliefs has a huge weakness.

[edhopper]

81. morality does not necessitate

a belief system, such as a religion.

In fact Religion can also exist without morality, and has been responsible for worse horrors than those you listed as belonging to science.

So yes, science is not weakened without belief.

[marylandblue]

82. Those are not examples of science divorced from morality

In all those cases, the people doing it likely believed it was morally acceptable. And since you've each person must decide these things for themselves, then we have to conclude that we must accept their judgement of their own actions, even as we judge those same actions differently.

[Major Nikon]

85. But we must ignore religion divorced from morality

Lest we violate the super-sacred and lesser known "11th commandment", right?

[trotsky]

93. How much of a holy text must one take literally before they are considered a literalist?

Does it have to be 100%?

[Mariana]

104. I suspect a literalist may be defined

as anyone who disagrees with Gil about which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally.

[trotsky]

108. Given his total lack of response whenever he is asked this question,

I believe your answer is accurate.

[guillaumeb]

115. Ask a literalist.

[trotsky]

117. You're the one labeling people with the term.

You need to define it. FFS gil at least TRY to defend your nonsense. By not even attempting, you're admitting to everyone that you too know it's nonsense, and you're making a fool of yourself.

[Lordquinton]

123. Literally the only one using that term

We are all forced to try and speak his language, which never gets explained. Sometimes I feel it's a matter of semiotics.

[Loki Liesmith]

84. Newton was not a Christian

[Major Nikon]

86. I'm not convinced that's true

Newton certainly didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, but that doesn't necessarily exclude him from being a Christian despite what some of them may claim. He was a very skilled theologian, but couldn't seek credit for his works during his lifetime for fear of being immolated in the town square.

[Bretton Garcia]

87. Guil repeats a common saying of the Church.

That science explains how we live. But allegedly, only the RCC can tell us why. Or what ultimate goal we should keep in mind for our lives.

But the Church is wrong. First, as many note here 1) the many ideas of the Church seem highly questionable just in themselves. But also?

2) For that matter, we might be able to frame an ultimate goal for our lives, from the values of science. Noting that say, the materialism of science suggests we should base our lives on attaining our physical survival and flourishing. And that of our species.

Or, in one often complementary view, maybe we should 3) look at life as a continuous scientific search for more and more information, a more and more complex approximation of truth. Possibly without ever claiming to know any ultimate things for certain.

So it may be that we should just give up on Guil's ultimate "why." All his conventional religious answers just reflecting the dogmatic vanity and pretentiousness of churches.

[Act_of_Reparation]

97. "So it may be that we should just give up on Guil's ultimate 'why'."

Bingo.

We make our own "why".

[NeoGreen]

89. Comedy Gold...

...from the perspective of a mythology where the whole premise arises out of "eating from the Tree of Knowledge".

If NOMA is to be followed, then religion should not stray from its ever shrinking "magesteria" of myth. Science will stick to reality, all of it, without the negative interference and misdirection from failed mythologies.

What are the half-lives of of the bad ideas forged from religious myth?

[Act_of_Reparation]

90. Yawn.

When you get tired of beating those strawmen, I have some really interesting books on ethics you really should read.

[bettyellen]

101. Sounds like you feel religion is needed for one to be responsible

Yeah, that’s not true. At all. This self righteous crap is why people hate being preached to.

[guillaumeb]

109. No, I do not.

Theism is one system.

[Blue Owl]

126. Belief System: or "B.S." for short

n/t