This sort of thing is not limited to religion at all. As linguistic scientist John McWhorter said in one of his lectures, "there is a point where every science becomes a religion". He was talking about certain linguists' insistence on the existence of a proto-world language, despite the total lack of evidence. All humans are always going to be at least a little bit religious. It's just natural when one has extremely high cognitive abilities (relatively speaking) but lack of-and desire for-knowledge of the unknowable. ...i should probably stop here before I go on a long ramble on religion, philosophy, science, etc. :hat:
An excellent example of why this way of thinking should be eradicated. It is harmful to our progress as a species. Or, failing that, worship Azathoth, the blind idiot god. Then maybe "I don't know" will be a perfectly valid answer. At least we could all agree he's fictional.
That is exactly opposite to my point. Further, I wouldn't say that religion is borne out of a desire for knowledge about the unknown and high cognitive abilities. Seems quite the opposite really.
history and religion Mr. Raptor, I think you and David show a lack of historical awareness. Religion has given us science. Observation and causality is the basis of all sciencific method as devised by theologians seeking a reason for the universe. Theology was the first 'science'. So, from Plato and Aristotle,'s methods of enquiry to Copernicus's heliocentricism (well before the Galileo debacle), to Okham's razor and many more since, thank theistic philosophers, theologians, Church men and women for learning, schools, hospitals, and nations. If the behaviour of vicious or ignorant people were enough to discredit a theory, where would that leave you - with atheism and Stalin? - scientific research and NAZI eugenics? - or even womens' empowerment and Lorena Bobbit? To judge a phenomenon by choosing to consider the worst of it as your measurement criterion is surely not good science, is it?
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but my previous post in this thread was about where we go from here. Nothing to do with judging religions by their past cruelties. If we're talking about a historical perspective, then we see how not all religions are created equal when it comes to coexisting with science and philosophy. Greek polytheism didn't get in the way of enquiry, and there wasn't an established dogma that had to be adhered to in the same way as under the Catholic Church. Look at the burning of the library at Alexandria, and how lucky the Christian world was that the Muslims cherished knowledge and kept the ancient books of pre-Christian Europe safe for when Europe started coming back to its senses. But really, it seems in spite of religion that science marches on, not because of it. And we are unarguably centuries behind where our understanding of the world might be, directly because of religious dogma and wilful, enforced ignorance. PS. I was loathe to write a reply, because leaving this thread at 666 posts would have been most pleasing
666!? I hadn't spotted that. We're doomed! You seem to be starting from a position of prejudice and you don't engage in my points to the Raptor, at all. Besides Plato arrived at monotheism via philosophy, and viewed polytheism as superstition.
Plato certainly did not arrive at monotheism. The Realm of Forms does not infer any singular intelligence or creator behind the universe. He's another example of an enquiring mind railing against religion and expanding thought beyond its blinkered view. Again, it is in spite of religion, not because of it. I'm not sure where you feel my prejudice lies though, as I've already stated that Islam has served science in the past. What point in your post am I not getting?
? What point are you trying to make there ? Edit - lol I thought he was making an observation not stating his religion. My brain couldn't connect the dots, my bad lol
On Plato and Socrates:http://pocm.info/pagan_ideas_monotheism.html Forms do imply monotheism because according to Plato, perfection must be indivisible. There is a lot on the internet and in real books about Plato and monotheism. The points you don't engage with are on scientific enquiry, Okham, Copernicus, theology being the first science, etc. You say religion has held back society without acknowledging what religion has done for society. There can be prejudice besides anti-Islam, though I am glad you don't have that one.
I'd make a distinction between saying the first science was an outgrowth of religion and the first scientists were religious people. If a devout detective solves a crime by looking at clues, piecing together evidence and talking to witnesses, we cannot claim that his solving the case is due to his religion, even if that may have been the precise reason that he started on his career. I think of it as the same level claim as 'Caucasian Europeans are responsible for science,' in the same sense as, while yes, it's true that they were religious/caucasian, that has little to do with their success in science. At it's very root, religion is based upon faith, believing with no evidence. If someone were to apply that paradigm to the courtroom, the lab bench, journalism or any other investigatory process, they'd rightfully be laughed out of the room. Faith healers and exorcists who attempt to out the demons of the mentally ill are two such laughing stocks. Making room to say 'well these guys were wrong about every single facet of the natural world that they wrote about, but they simply MUST be right about that which no one can yet enquire into' seems more a statement about what we want to believe rather than a justifiable conclusion. Science was an outgrowth of systematic and universally applied doubt, something that religion cannot incorporate into its process or stand against. That's not my critique of religion, though we could certainly go down that avenue. My critique is saying that you know something, while really in no sense of the word 'knowing' it, is a very silly approach. Trusting documents as divine, or offering some account of divine communication, when they so obviously fall short of those measurements, seems to me to also be a sily approach. PS with regard to Lorena Bobbitt, is she really on the same level? Last I heard she had been raped and physically abused.
That doesn't make them right. The monotheists are erroneously co-opting Plato as one of their own. The Realm of Forms does not equal a monotheistic god. The forms have no purpose or plan, nor do they represent any kind of singular intelligence. I didn't know before today that some Christians attempt to claim Platonic Ideals as being a kind of proto-monotheistic belief. It really seems to be missing the point to me. If Platonic Ideals are a nascent form of anything, I would argue that category theory, set theory and other fundamental mathmatical theories are far more likely candidates. Philosoraptor addressed those points well, but I'd add that superstition has been a fundamental part of the human psyche for as long as we've been around. I don't think it's coincidence that the greatest strides in theory and application have happened since the Enlightenment and the disentangling of religion from scientific enquiry. Minimising the effects of superstition and fantastical cosmologies demonstrably benefits humans. Terrible things can still be justified without recourse to supernatural beings, yes. But I think we are better off trying to continue down the road of empiricism, rather than clinging to anachronistic tribal deities that have swollen to cosmic proportions with the growing imagination of those who believe in them. That's just my opinion, and I realise I'm in the minority. I made the decision as a young child that, even if there were a god, I would live my life as if there was not. The responsibility for my actions, and the inentions behind them, are mine and mine alone. Once I grew older, looking objectively at the gamut of religious ideas humans have come up with, and experimenting with my own belief and spiritual experiences, it became impossible to support any notion of objective truth to any kind of omnipotent creator. You're not serious about there not being schools or hospitals without religion, are you?
David, we do not need to co-opt Plato. It is a different monotheism from Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Vaishnavite Hinduism – all are different from each other in varying degrees, but it is monotheism, nevertheless. He believed God was the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. He did have problem with immutability, so he had to posit demiurges to get things done, but God was nevertheless God. Forms do not equal monotheism. But Forms are perfections and there can only be, ultimately, one perfection. A perfection which is a cause (Omnipotence was a Platonic idea) is necessarily more perfect than one which is sterile. Some Christians? The Apostle Paul clearly uses platonic ideas, and so Augustine. These are not fringe figures. I’ve got no problem with this. It does follow that forms are inconsistent with a single active perfection - which Plato explicitly espoused, in any case. I’ll answer his points next. Would that not imply that there is something of these cultural phenomena – superstition is a derogatory term – which like a kind of social DNA has contributed to society. There is much beauty in religion as well as ugliness and credit should be given where it is due. Is it a coincidence that the methods of enquiry – observation of cause and effect – pre-existed the Enlightenment by eons? We might further consider that without the ‘superstition’ of an ultimate retributory Judge, our enquiry and progress is in danger of destroying us by consumerism, pollution, engines of war, etc. I am not knocking atheism. It has contributed and is a sign of the failure of Christianity to present it’s message in a compelling way. But again, credit where it is due. Caricature. Look at the good things in religion before dismissing it. I’m not here to knock your beliefs, but personal perspective is rarely very objective. A strange inference. I did not say they could not exist without religion. Just that they grew directly out of religious thought and devotion. That the Enlightenment later jumps on the bandwagon and recognises the need for education and care for the poor is to its credit.
It's been a good 15 years since I studied Plato, but the Craftsman is not the first cause, and there are other gods beneath him, right? I don't feel atheism is a sign of Christianity failing to give a compelling message. I feel a lack of an "ultimate retributory Judge" is a sign of us growing up as a species. Belief in ultimate retributory judges never stopped us being greedy, destroying our environment or coming up with ways of killing each other. I can see how it can give comfort to some people on a personal level, but what good things have come about because of religion on a wider societal scale? But religion is built on personal perspective, it doesn't have anything else. However, if you explore it with an open mind and experience a few different belief systems, you will find that anything you invest enough belief in will begin to shape the world as you perceive it. A person can get just as much spiritual experience from a fictional pantheon as any established religion. If any religion can feel like the ultimate truth, even contradictory ones, then would that not suggest that it all occurs in our head as a psychological phenomenon? That's certainly the conclusion I came to after having a personal relationship with a few gods. Hmmm... hospitals didn't do too much healing before the Enlightenment though, did they? And, in England at least, there have been secular schools for as long as religious ones.
