Author Topic: Treating Religiosity (Read 2021 times)

Suave · « **Reply #15 on:** November 13, 2004, 04:29:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
How is it rude to say it would be nice to get rid of people who justify horrible things with religion?

I never said all religious people were dumb.

Just take a deep breath and relax.

Whether or not you meant to, you implied that religious people are idiots. At least that's the impression I got, but ok.

Suave · « **Reply #16 on:** November 13, 2004, 04:33:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
wait, so does this cure the leader,ned flanders, or marge?

The leader is good. The leader is great. We surrender our will, as of this date.

Yeah, that episode was a great commentary on religion.

Leslie · « **Reply #17 on:** November 13, 2004, 04:38:08 PM »

What does science have to fear from religion that they want to supress or eliminate it? I have a big problem with the presentation of science as the only truth. Are we to ignore the spiritual part of mankind altogether? Dismiss it as a mental abberation?

Where does philosophy and the humanities fit in? I'm reasonably certain the man who wrote that article has some kind of artwork in his house... maybe even some books dealing with literature and philosophy. Perhaps a radio that plays music. Those products are the result of spiritual guidance, and I say that science would not exist without them (the humanities) as a foundation to build on.

It's kinda ironic that a scientist would want to squelch the very mindspring from which all real science draws. Without religiosity, there would be no science, except the junk science Tweety mentioned.

Les

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 13, 2004, 04:59:15 PM »

Suave do you mean to say that... we have an organ in our heads that controls what we think and believe? And this organ is subject to maladies and irregularities like any other organ? SHOCKING!!! YOU NAZI!!!

Suave · « **Reply #19 on:** November 13, 2004, 05:22:23 PM »

Philosopy is science, it's rational deduction. Religion of course is abandonment of rationality. I think the reason to fear fanatacism, which is what religion is, is that most of the worlds suffering can be traced back to it. I'm in agreement with the constitutional authors when it comes to religion-"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

But I don't think anybody is seriously deluded enough to think that they can suppress or eradicate religion. Understanding the cause however is something I find fascinating. Don't confuse spirituality with religion, if that is even possible to confuse the two.

People in general seem to have a need for dogma and religion. Take for example buddhism, a worldview based on scientific principle which can be demonstrated and observed. It's since been corruped by mankind with idolatry and ceremony and dogma.

I don't think the budha meant that karma was a supernatural force. Or that our concious continues to another creature when we are reincarnated. For these things are not observable or demonstratable.

When I related to a friend what I thought the budha meant he replied jokingly. "Yeah but where's the fun in that". Perhaps that's part of the puzzle, people want to believe in the fantastic.

It seems that human beings have this unreasonable, intrinsic need for idol worship, ceremony, shamanism, and a belief in supernatural. This fascinates me, and any research into this field interests me very much.

AKIron · « **Reply #20 on:** November 13, 2004, 06:05:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Philosopy is science, it's rational deduction. Religion of course is abandonment of rationality.

You're taking a really big leap of faith there. Many religions are based on historical evidence of the supernatural. Sure, neither of us was there to observe the resurrection of Christ for example but that does not mean it didn't happen. How many things do you take on faith, evidence unseen?

Suave · « **Reply #21 on:** November 13, 2004, 08:17:37 PM »

Please don't try to rationalize your belief in the god magic. You'll just waste our time.

Octavius · « **Reply #22 on:** November 13, 2004, 08:32:34 PM »

I believe the sky is green. Aside from that, I like Arthur C Clarke.

A theme throughout Clarke's novels is the internal evolution of the human spirit and man's innate desire to expand his reach. But he doesn't see religion as the answer. He calls religion a "disease of infancy," and in _3001: The Final Odyssey_, it has become taboo, a product of man's early ignorance that provoked hatred and bloodshed.

"One of my objections to religion is that it prevents the search for god, if there is one," he says. "I have an open mind on the subject, if there's anything behind the universe. And I'm quite sympathetic with the views that there could be."

Nash · « **Reply #23 on:** November 13, 2004, 08:49:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Religion of course is abandonment of rationality.

I'm not so sure...

I think religion tries to cling to rationality, and tries to apply that rationality to their beliefs....

Much like AKIron said right after your post: "Many religions are based on historical evidence of the supernatural."

To me, that is just off. I don't think anything needs to be proven. I think trying to prove spirituality makes those involved just look silly.

Religion is a way of giving spirituality credibility. Of trying to formalize it. Making it into something digestible. Even something usable. And even.... a means to pit one's interpretation of spirituality against another's.

Why the charade?

Religion may be "the abandonment of rationality."

But screw religion....

Spirituality, faith, good works... This weathers any attack along the lines of "abandoning rationality". For truly, it acknowledges that abandonment of rationality. Embraces it comfortably.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** November 13, 2004, 09:00:53 PM »

If this "religiosity" is a physical condition arent atheists and the like really the abberant mentally ill ones consiering that some high figure like 90% of the worlds population is religious?

moot · « **Reply #25 on:** November 13, 2004, 10:33:46 PM »

The first mutation occurence of a superior species is "deviant" by nature, yeah.

//
"rational" and "irrational".
Religion falls in the second one, have fun debating nonsense.

Suave · « **Reply #26 on:** November 13, 2004, 10:42:34 PM »

Well, less than 10% of the population suffer from religiosity. Most fanatics are believers because people they trusted the most in the universe told them it was true. In other words it doesn't come from influences within, ie. hallucinations, it is a product of social influences. Nobody is born a stalinist or a catholic, but we now think that the hard wiring in our brains is there to facilitate it.

But, just to illustrate the flaw in your logic in reference to disease and disorders.If 90% of the world had aids would the ones without it be the unhealthy ones? No. Disease isn't determined by frequency or prevalence.

We allready know that we're born with the physiolgy and brain mapping for irrational activity, emotions and love. But the necesity for these social functions is obvious.

The question is, why are humans equiped with the brain paths for religion? What purpose does this irrational activity serve? Population control? Tribal and territorial purposes? Is it really species specific to homo sapiens sapiens?

moot · « **Reply #27 on:** November 13, 2004, 10:44:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron You're taking a really big leap of faith there.

oops!

Nash · « **Reply #28 on:** November 13, 2004, 10:47:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
We allready know that we're born with the physiolgy and brain mapping for irrational activity, emotions and love. But the necesity for these social functions is obvious.

The question is, why are humans equiped with the brain paths for religion?

Quit using the word religion. You're trying to marginalize the whole thing, and you know it.

The word is spirituality. Or faith.

So, it turns out our brain is wired for such "irrational" things, as you say.... love and emotion.

It also turns out that it is wired for spirituality.

But you accept the first two, and question the third as if it were some kind of tumor?

AKIron · « **Reply #29 on:** November 13, 2004, 10:48:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I'm not so sure...

I think religion tries to cling to rationality, and tries to apply that rationality to their beliefs....

Much like AKIron said right after your post: "Many religions are based on historical evidence of the supernatural."

To me, that is just off. I don't think anything needs to be proven. I think trying to prove spirituality makes those involved just look silly.

Religion is a way of giving spirituality credibility. Of trying to formalize it. Making it into something digestible. Even something usable. And even.... a means to pit one's interpretation of spirituality against another's.

Why the charade?

Religion may be "the abandonment of rationality."

But screw religion....

Spirituality, faith, good works... This weathers any attack along the lines of "abandoning rationality". For truly, it acknowledges that abandonment of rationality. Embraces it comfortably.

I disagree. If Christ was not resurrected there is no point to Christianity.