• Archbishop of Canterbury says Paris attacks made him question the existence of God
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49166572]Religion got radicalism on their side though[/QUOTE] People can be radical about politics. The difference isn't whether someone believes in god or not, it's about whether or not someone believes in something bigger than themself. I think the 20th century saw more crimes against humanity committed in the name of "the people" than in the name of god. When you can justify your cause as being with reference to some objectively right principle or being, like god or the will of the people or the necessity of the gene pool (eugenics), then you can justify anything you need to do to achieve that end.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;49165772]Oh yeah, religion and science have [I]really[/I] gone hand in hand in the past :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] I don't know if this is a joke or not. The vast majority of scientists throughout the history of mankind have been religious with a very sizable portion of them attributing their scientific inclinations to their religious beliefs.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49167953]Science doesn't exactly say anything about morality. Its pretty much just a method and practice.[/QUOTE] Actually, you missed the train on both Soviet Moral Realism and Utilitarianism then. The Soviet Union made great efforts to scientifically deduce morality, good living, and good being. If something was healthy for you, it was considered morally good. If a work-space change had a positive impact on the happiness of the worker, it was a morally good thing. If people felt more good about a decree, it must be good. This sort of thinking has it's roots in basic Act-Utilitarianism. If [Act] produced [+x Happiness] it is morally permissable. If [Act] produced [-x Happiness] it is morally impermissable. This is an entirely mathmatical/scientific way of looking at morality, with clear and measurable metrics for the outcomes. Both sorts of thinking terminate in what are typically considered, "unconscionable" moralities. The first simply held fiat that, if enough people prospered from something, even if it hurt [I]almost[/I] as many, it was morally good because there were more happy people. The second, likewise, delivered us to such absurdities as, "If murder makes me happy enough, then it's worth while because scientifically my utility outweighs the victim's." Science has pulled some pretty rad moves, yo.
Bishop's belief befuddled after bombing
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49169252]Actually, you missed the train on both Soviet Moral Realism and Utilitarianism then. The Soviet Union made great efforts to scientifically deduce morality, good living, and good being. If something was healthy for you, it was considered morally good. If a work-space change had a positive impact on the happiness of the worker, it was a morally good thing. If people felt more good about a decree, it must be good. This sort of thinking has it's roots in basic Act-Utilitarianism. If [Act] produced [+x Happiness] it is morally permissable. If [Act] produced [-x Happiness] it is morally impermissable. This is an entirely mathmatical/scientific way of looking at morality, with clear and measurable metrics for the outcomes. Both sorts of thinking terminate in what are typically considered, "unconscionable" moralities. The first simply held fiat that, if enough people prospered from something, even if it hurt [I]almost[/I] as many, it was morally good because there were more happy people. The second, likewise, delivered us to such absurdities as, "If murder makes me happy enough, then it's worth while because scientifically my utility outweighs the victim's." Science has pulled some pretty rad moves, yo.[/QUOTE] That wasn't science though, that's still just a variant of utilitarianism. Also the Soviet Union was a terrible place in general to live, not to mention that it bastardized scientific philosophy and promoted various forms of pseudosciences.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49169198]I don't know if this is a joke or not. The vast majority of scientists throughout the history of mankind have been religious with a very sizable portion of them attributing their scientific inclinations to their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] You'd be the one joking because it's of a general consensus that the christian religion specifically has hindered human advancement to the tune about a [B]1000 years[/B]. [quote] traditions of classical philosophy [/quote] You're conflating Jesuit thesis with all of Catholicism, no such animal exists, at all. Furthermore such inculcation of sciencey stuff didn't occur until the counter-reformation and well after the council of Trent was ratified, and the Jesuits didn't actively convey sciences as the will of god until the 1800s. The universities in Bologna, Paris, and Oxford taught latin, theology and math until the Condemnation and then that shit ended, especially for anyone not Catholic. So unless you were an architect a civil engineer or a dude who liked speaking dead languages for no reason in particular, you weren't going to be popular in the church from 1200 until the Renaissance, and after that the human condition and anything resembling higher physics was still off limits. Meanwhile the church has been around since when?
[QUOTE=27X;49169379]You'd be the one joking because it's of a general consensus that the christian religion specifically has hindered human advancement to the tune about a [B]1000 years[/B].[/QUOTE] Wat? I really don't even know how to respond to that. It's like the ultimate argument from an authority that doesn't even exist.
[QUOTE=27X;49169379]You'd be the one joking because it's of a general consensus that the christian religion specifically has hindered human advancement to the tune about a [B]1000 years[/B]. You're conflating Jesuit thesis with all of Catholicism, no such animal exists, at all. Furthermore such inculcation of sciencey stuff didn't occur until the counter-reformation and well after the council of Trent was ratified, and the Jesuits didn't actively convey sciences as the will of god until the 1800s. The universities in Bologna, Paris, and Oxford taught latin, theology and math until the Condemnation and then that shit ended, especially for anyone not Catholic. So unless you were an architect a civil engineer or a dude who liked speaking dead languages for no reason in particular, you weren't going to be popular in the church from 1200 until the Renaissance, and after that the human condition and anything resembling higher physics was still off limits. Meanwhile the church has been around since when?[/QUOTE] You do know that the "Dark Ages" are a very heavy misnomer? Churches funded universities and sciences throughout the dark ages. It wasn't just barbaric religious dogmatism, there was a lot of fascinating research going on. You had Augustine and Aquinas and major medieval philosophers developing fairly convincing and interesting arguments for the existence of God, all within a very logical structure consistent with modern discussions on logic and philosophy and theology. Christian theology is a super fascinating topic and it's not at all just "we're right god exists," 95% of it or more is basically critical self-doubt concerning the existence of god. Being an outspoken atheist wasn't accepted, absolutely, but it never was before those times either. Socrates was killed for being accused of not believing in the gods of Athens - are you trying to say that the Christian church during the medieval era was any worse? Seriously. The leaps and bounds made in architecture and art and philosophy in the medieval era are only slightly slower than at most other points in human history before that (and that's heavily debatable). We didn't just suddenly have a Renaissance enlightenment in Europe - that was formed from the philosophy and theology of the medieval era. Europeans invented the compass during the "dark ages." We used Chinese gunpowder to create cannons and early projectile weaponry. We created water-wheels to mill flour, rapidly increasing the efficiency of agriculture - those same mills were used for paper, cloth, metalworking, and dozens of other types of backbreaking labor. Windmills were invented and did the same thing. Europeans invented fireplaces and chimneys, which had simply not existed in their modern form until the "dark ages" - the Romans had indoor fires that filled rooms with smoke, and hadn't figured out a way to properly get a draft through the building to bring the smoke outside. We made eyeglasses. We invented hundreds of things that radically impacted agriculture and animal husbandry. Horseshoes? Huge help. Stirrups? Changed war for centuries in the future. Horse collars? Allowed horses to carry significantly heavier plows and made agriculture even more efficient. The renaissance would never have happened if the medieval era disappeared. The technological and scientific advances aren't as noticeable, but they led to an increased urbanization that made the Renaissance possible in the first place. I barely even mentioned architecture - gothic cathedrals are still some of the most impressive buildings created, and perfected the arch form that the Romans only used in its simplest style.
[QUOTE=27X;49169379]You'd be the one joking because it's of a general consensus that the christian religion specifically has hindered human advancement to the tune about a [B]1000 years[/B]. [/QUOTE] General consensus of whom? Edgy teenagers on r/atheism? The internet? Because I can tell you that is certainly not how the academia sees it. Even forgoing the numerous advancements in architecture, filology, math, chemistry that were brought into the world directly by men of the cloth, and the indirect advancements that they financed, Christianity literally created the Modern Western civilization: abolition of slavery, the importance of free will and the idea that there is a personal I (the Ancients didn't have a concept of personality, of soul and individual mind as we do today), freedom, the idea that we should pursue ideals, the idea that all humans are equal and numerous other things that you associate with Humanism and Western Civilization wouldn't have been there without Christianity.
He wasn't aware that free will is a thing, I guess.
[QUOTE=Buck.;49167921]It may be late but better than never. We may just get another independent thinker out of him yet.[/QUOTE] The irony in saying an [i]archbishop[/i] isn't an independent thinker. They tend to be theologians in their own right, studied on a variety of topics, constantly questioning and doubting and criticizing and thinking about their religion, reading and debating and developing new arguments and ideas about faith in the framework of their religion. Yes, religion can be dogmatic, but when you reach the upper echelon of clergy, especially in the Catholic church, you're going to see a [i]lot[/i] of debate and discussion and disagreement. I'd argue that "science is so cool bro space man mars 2020 religion sux!" is as dogmatic and free from independent thought as religious dogmatists. Independent thought involves original arguments. Rehashing the arguments of famous philosophers and theologians without adding anything to it isn't independent thought, it's derivative in every way. Spouting "Occam's razor! Teapot in space!" doesn't make you an independent thinker - it just makes you think [i]oh i'm on the smart guy side now![/i]. No arguments, no debate, no thinking, no discussion - you hear a few arguments, you're convinced, and you're in that camp now forever and you stop questioning the validity of it. That's not independent thought. I'm not religious in the slightest, but the idea that religion is antithetical to independent though is a joke.
[QUOTE=27X;49169379]You'd be the one joking because it's of a general consensus that the christian religion specifically has hindered human advancement to the tune about a [B]1000 years[/B].[/QUOTE] this is among one of the most offensively ignorant statements about science, history, philosophy, and religion. it's so terrible that a stupid person couldn't have possibly come up with it, you needed to go and get an education so as to make a statement so awful the christian church more or less was responsible for preserving and developing virtually every single cultural tradition, technology, language, innovation, philosophy, etc that had existed in the western roman empire and preserved it for future posterity. the idea that somehow the church is opposed to science is based on a bunch of hack idiots in the 18th century who stressed the virtually nonexistent similarities that modern civilization had with classical civilization, viewing the entire medieval period as some kind of black hole in which nothing happened remember that it was a priest who theorized the big bang. it was a monk who created the discipline of genetics. roger bacon was a monk who published the first recipe for gunpowder in the west. it was astronomers working in service of the church who created the modern calendar we use today. Nicolas Copernicus was a clergymen who developed the theory of the heliocentric universe. you're ignoring the many thousands who spent their entire lives throughout the medieval and modern periods helping to develop the modern world and somehow christianity "held us back by a thousand years". what advancement was hindered? roman civilization literally tortured people to death for fun and civilization actually regressed and collapsed during the third and fourth centuries of the roman empire
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49170417]The irony in saying an [i]archbishop[/i] isn't an independent thinker. They tend to be theologians in their own right, studied on a variety of topics, constantly questioning and doubting and criticizing and thinking about their religion, reading and debating and developing new arguments and ideas about faith in the framework of their religion. Yes, religion can be dogmatic, but when you reach the upper echelon of clergy, especially in the Catholic church, you're going to see a [i]lot[/i] of debate and discussion and disagreement. I'd argue that "science is so cool bro space man mars 2020 religion sux!" is as dogmatic and free from independent thought as religious dogmatists. Independent thought involves original arguments. Rehashing the arguments of famous philosophers and theologians without adding anything to it isn't independent thought, it's derivative in every way. Spouting "Occam's razor! Teapot in space!" doesn't make you an independent thinker - it just makes you think [i]oh i'm on the smart guy side now![/i]. No arguments, no debate, no thinking, no discussion - you hear a few arguments, you're convinced, and you're in that camp now forever and you stop questioning the validity of it. That's not independent thought. I'm not religious in the slightest, but the idea that religion is antithetical to independent though is a joke.[/QUOTE] Surely believing in a God is all about looking for answers from higher up. It's about going to a place to get told how to live every week. They wouldn't have to debate or question anything if their religion wasn't so full of questionable material. I don't think that all religious people are stupid, especially not in our past where religion was the only way of life. However to believe in a God today, with all the information and facts available to us can only be called ignorance. If one day someone does make a prayer driven car I will gladly reconsider. No one had to tell me to think that, I thought about this when I was 9 years old after I stopped believing in Santa. In fact if I wasn't told and taught about about God and religion I wouldn't even understand the concept. Also just because some idea has a neat name like "Occam's razor" doesn't mean it's untrue, however I do think people that use these terms sound a bit pretentious. Honestly you shouldn't even need to know anything about philosophy to think independently, just use your observations and common sense. But you could also argue that independent thought is impossible too... Just don't think of science as an entity, it's a process. Don't compare it to religion, because unlike religion, science is a good indicator of truth. Religion is about taking action based on stories. Science is more like a checklist, your'e welcome to try and disprove any of it, or try and prove a new idea carving out a whole new field. It show's us what we know and what you're yet to discover. I don't think accepting science at face value is wrong. Everything outside of science is where you must think independently, even if it does lead to ancient alien theorists. Religion spreads from the top down, science spreads from the bottom up. Check any graph ever, that's how it goes.
[QUOTE=Buck.;49171791]Surely believing in a God is all about looking for answers from higher up. It's about going to a place to get told how to live every week. [/QUOTE] This just isn't true. A lot of the great scientists throughout history attributed their desire to learn about the nature of the world as a function of their desire to learn about their God. The knowledge of a rational creator also made them expect a rational world that is available to rational inquiry. Your disdain for religion is based off ignorance, not fact.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;49169693']General consensus of whom? Edgy teenagers on r/atheism? The internet? Because I can tell you that is certainly not how the academia sees it. Even forgoing the numerous advancements in architecture, filology, math, chemistry that were brought into the world directly by men of the cloth, and the indirect advancements that they financed, Christianity literally created the Modern Western civilization: abolition of slavery, the importance of free will and the idea that there is a personal I (the Ancients didn't have a concept of personality, of soul and individual mind as we do today), freedom, the idea that we should pursue ideals, the idea that all humans are equal and numerous other things that you associate with Humanism and Western Civilization wouldn't have been there without Christianity.[/QUOTE] Consensus of Neil Degrasse Tyson for one, check the 11-14 StarTalk, and the podcast after it. Yeah that is how a lot of academia sees it. Not everyone who even is religious buys the preservation angle. [quote] preserved [/quote] Crusades state otherwise, also nice of you to mention one specific anthropological skant while omitting the church completely decimating Amerind, and both near and far eastern cultures for no other reason than ideology. [quote] Dark Ages [/quote] Not even mentioning this, wasn't even a topic of discussion. Christian faith has been around a very long time, and not all of it is sunshine and rainbows and Isaac Newton.
[QUOTE=27X;49172208]Consensus of Neil Degrasse Tyson for one, check the 11-14 StarTalk, and the podcast after it.[/quote] neil degrasse tycoon is a hack fraud who runs a planetarium and relies on memes notable scientific papers produced by NDT: [quote]Yeah that is how a lot of academia sees it. Not everyone who even is religious buys the preservation angle.[/quote] a lot of academia knows precisely nothing about it. biologists and physicists deal with biology and physics, not history most historians and philosophers (in particular historians and philosophers of science) recognize the intellectual contributions of clergymen it was a fucking clergyman who discovered that the earth went around the sun, and the catholic church was one of the first institutions to readily adopt it [quote]also nice of you to mention one specific anthropological skant while omitting the church completely decimating Amerind, and both near and far eastern cultures for no other reason than ideology.[/quote] the church didn't genocide amerindians, i'm pretty sure it was smallpox and spanish conquisadores [quote]Christian faith has been around a very long time, and not all of it is sunshine and rainbows and Isaac Newton.[/QUOTE] saying "christianity held us back by a thousand years" is basically admitting you know basically nothing about european history
[quote] and now this land and its bounty are ours, granted by Divine Right [/quote] Wonder why divine right is capitalized there, must have been colonial athiests from r/ Smallpox isn't responsible for killing and herding the remaining amerinds who were immune or survived, and again nice skate on asia, and say the church backed mandate used in China. I know plenty about european history, I just don't ignore the parts that don't fit my absurd ideological narrative.
[QUOTE=27X;49172582]Wonder why divine right is capitalized there, must have been colonial athiests from r/[/quote] you ignored my point about academics virtually all academics of history acknowledge the importance of the church in medieval europe and the impact it had on science and philosophy there are still numerous christian academics today making contributions to their respective fields, having found no contradictions between their work and faith [quote]Smallpox isn't responsible for killing and herding the remaining amerinds who were immune or survived, and again nice skate on asia, and say the church backed mandate used in China.[/quote] can you name me an ethnic group and/or culture that was wiped out by christianity in the near east or east asia [quote]I know plenty about european history, I just don't ignore the parts that don't fit my absurd ideological narrative.[/QUOTE] an absurd ideological narrative is claiming that the catholic church somehow held human advancement back by a thousand years. what the fuck does that even mean? you seem to imply that human advancement (whatever that is) was somehow this steadily progressing thing up until the moment rome collapsed, and then for a thousand years the christians kept things locked in place until the renaissance
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.