is it you?

[Ender]

For example, evolution can be proven - it can be observed directly - but one can't prove that it describes where we came from, and therefore that it precludes intelligent design.

Ah, stop right there!

Evolution on a micro level has been directly observed.  Evolution on a macro level (entire new orders, classes, phyla) has not been observed and arguably will be impossible to observe.  Consider what we know about that process in terms of genetics - a major differentiation between species is in terms of chromosomal count.  However, when we observe genetic mutations that result in extra chromosomes, such as trisomy-21, we get defects that would be prohibitive to advancement through natural selection, such as Down's Syndrome.  (additional chromosomal problems)

I'm not saying that evolution can't be observed - I just think that it's incorrect to say "evolution is a directly observable fact," because it's not really the whole story.

Scientific theories can't be proven. Proof is reserved for axiomatic systems, like mathematics. As nslay says, there's always a chance that any established scientific theory could be wrong, e.g. the effect of gravity is just a perpetual coincidence.

[nslay]

Because telling people that the reason they want to kill themselves is that they don't believe in God -- or are "seperated" from God, whatever -- is a perfectly acceptable form of trying to convert people...

What's funny is that I hear this bullshit all the time from my parents. "I'm feeling down today." "And when was the last time you went to church?"

Organized religion is fucked up. Srsly.

That sucks. :(

My parents aren't that pushy, but coming out of the "agnostic" closet was a bit of a process, heh.

Yeah, I agree.  I don't know, maybe there are exceptions, but it certainly seems like the monster religions (Christianity, Islam, etc) can be dangerous/annoying.

You'll feel differently if you study the philosophy of religion. A lot of smart people are, or were, religious; you're just focusing on a minority. This same minority of dumb and despicable people exists among atheists, but they often just don't have as much political power -- they are effectively invisible. You may argue that it is the effect of the minority that matters, and that religion enables the misplacement of political power; to which I will respond: if you denounce religion for effecting religious wars, you may as well denounce science for producing the atomic bomb. It's rather hypocritical.

Aside from this, the antagonization of religion is a vain way for many to exalt themselves. People like to be in minorities: such antipathy can be very self-serving. I'm not saying this about you, but rather as something that applies well in general.

The only way to attack Christianity is to start at the base, Christian morality, and the context in which it was introduced. You can't take advantage of a primary source by decrying disconnected secondary sources. A tree's strength is not measured by bad branches. The same can be said for Islam, Judaism, and all other religions.

I know, because lots of smart people are/were religious justifies religion, right?  I think religion in general is frightening solely because of how it is assembled.  It is assembled from a set of basic beliefs which bare no resemblance to reality, yet are used to make claims about reality.  Even scarier is that people poison their minds and inhibit their ability to reason by accepting unfounded beliefs as absolute truth.  Math is constructed in a similar manner as religion (though quite different), it has a set of axioms, the analog of beliefs.  The only difference is that axioms are largely intuitive, self-evident, and even observable with pen and paper.  Yet, Math is can be made to describe and even simulate processes of reality with measurable certainty!  
Though, it is not necessarily true that unfounded beliefs are false.  Take for example the ZF axiom: There is an infinite set.  I happen to think the assumption is outrageous since nothing appears infinite in the observable universe.  But what is remarkable is that the development of theoretical tools that are used to accurately describe the world and develop technology rely heavily on said axiom.  Since these theoretical tools, which bare resemblance to reality, are a consequence of said axiom, it is probably safe to believe it is true.

[Ender]

Does not "love thy neighbor" manifest itself in the real world, just as pure mathematics manifests itself in technology?

Every religion, at its core, is a set of moral and philosophical beliefs, which can indeed apply to and improve societies. Religion gives people a common judge, just like civil government, except without the practical limitations of sublunary authority. It brings people out of a state of nature; it establishes order. Of course, there were blips in this order, there were religious wars -- but ask yourself, how many more wars would have been fought had it not been for religion? How many civil wars would there have been, how many more rebellions, how many more murders, crimes, et cetera? Would we not have been mired in an interminable state of war?

You are claiming religions to comprise a set of silly, irrelevant, unfounded beliefs. As I have said before on these forums, you may as well dismiss 2,000 years of moral philosophy. Christianity, for example, was founded as a reaction to the prevailing master morality of the Romans at the time. It was founded from a moral basis, and a moral basis is not something silly or fantastical.

And by, "there are many smart people who are religious," I am 1) dispelling a common fallacy in dismissing religion and 2) hinting that it is not a wise idea to dismiss something without reading the foremost opposition formed by people who have devoted their lives to such a cause, e.g. religious philosophers and theologians.

[nslay]

Does not "love thy neighbor" manifest itself in the real world, just as pure mathematics manifests itself in technology?

Every religion, at its core, is a set of moral and philosophical beliefs, which can indeed apply to and improve societies. Religion gives people a common judge, just like civil government, except without the practical limitations of sublunary authority. It brings people out of a state of nature; it establishes order. Of course, there were blips in this order, there were religious wars -- but ask yourself, how many more wars would have been fought had it not been for religion? How many civil wars would there have been, how many more rebellions, how many more murders, crimes, et cetera? Would we not have been mired in an interminable state of war?

Should morals be based on the historical past, ideals and principles presented by a belief system with no real basis?  Do you think that morality might be better discerned through thought and reason?  Do you happen to know the frequency of wars in the absence of religion?  Is there really a connection between religion and lower crime rate?  I heard, second hand, that education reduces crime rate...can the same be said of religion?

You are claiming religions to comprise a set of silly, irrelevant, unfounded beliefs. As I have said before on these forums, you may as well dismiss 2,000 years of moral philosophy. Christianity, for example, was founded as a reaction to the prevailing master morality of the Romans at the time. It was founded from a moral basis, and a moral basis is not something silly or fantastical.

Well, isn't it?  Maybe we should dismiss it... science adapts, evolves and repairs itself, why can't moral philosophy do the same?  It also mystifies a man who had radical ideas for the time...a mere man, in the face of a weary Roman empire and a governor who wasn't about to dismiss a large crowd of angry Jews.

And by, "there are many smart people who are religious," I am 1) dispelling a common fallacy in dismissing religion and 2) hinting that it is not a wise idea to dismiss something without reading the foremost opposition formed by people who have devoted their lives to such a cause, e.g. religious philosophers and theologians.

Okay, I agree to some extent.  But really, religion is a methodology to answer big questions about life and no two have the same answer.  In the mean time, LHC could potentially reveal secrets about the creation of the universe.  Religion has nothing to show for it...even in 2000 years.  Maybe religion is better suited to mythology?

[nslay]

You know how everyone views Scientology, and related, as crazy cults?  Have you ever asked yourself why you view these specifically as crazy cults, and Christianity, Islam and others as venerable?  Maybe conditioning plays a role?  If you were an innocent child and you read a passage out of Exodus where God commands the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites, would you really believe that this happened, or that this is representation of God?  Honestly!  Pick up Mother Goose obfuscated by the ancient language and translation and the radically different imaginations and perspectives of an ancient people...maybe it'll sound true too.

[Ender]

First, what does it matter if morals are based on a 2,000 year old philosophy? Is not much of math based on a 2,000 year old Euclidean geometry? I do not see how the Ten Commandments are any less intuitive than Euclid's five postulates.

Indeed, the fact that a religion has withstood the test of time does mean something. It doesn't prove anything, but it does mean something, interpret it as you may. Also, you ask if I happen to know the frequency of wars in the absence of religion; all I have to say to this is, do you?

Second, of course moral philosophy can reinvent itself; else we wouldn't have "two thousand years" of moral philosophy. That's why for every Kierkegaard we have a Nietzsche. There's no monopoly on such matters. Christianity is but one religion, one philosophy; nowhere in Christian morality is there an explicit clause for intervening in other religions. It may express views on other religions, of the "wrongness" of other religions, but do not all philosophies, all scientific theories, all civil governments, tacitly declare all on the contrary to be false? Is that not a precondition of a conclusion? Is "thou shalt have no other gods before me" not the same negation of other religions as the theory of relativity is a negation of the ether? or as democracy is of monarchy? Does not the statement, a separable metric space has a countable dense subset, negate anything contrary to the field axioms?

A conclusion is a conclusion is a conclusion, is a negation of the contrary. If you do not find enough reasoning to support the conclusions of Christian morality, you should read how a religious philosopher or theologian supports it, like Kierkegaard for one.

Third, you laud the LHC for its potential, or more generally science for its accomplishments, and wonder how religion can measure up to that. But I ask you how many lives has religion saved, in the past 7,000 years of civilization? How much comfort and conviction and meaning does it give people? How many bonds does it make? How much order has it created? (Once again you must not focus on the bad branches; a religious war is but one branch of religion, just as an atomic bomb is but one branch of science.)

As an aside, I was not "conditioned".

[Rule]

Ender, you are yet to answer the questions I asked you in our religious discussion.

[nslay]

First, what does it matter if morals are based on a 2,000 year old philosophy? Is not much of math based on a 2,000 year old Euclidean geometry? I do not see how the Ten Commandments are any less intuitive than Euclid's five postulates.

Though, 2000 year old science and math wouldn't take you far now, nor would the accompanying ancient perspective.  Math, science and perspective evolved into what we have now.  Though, in my opinion, math still has a ways to go.  We only have linear tools to work with.  As for the Ten Commandments, while I'm not atheist, there is nothing intuitive about the commandments related to God, idols and sabbath or any that are morally or culturally relative (e.g. adultery).  The God concept is not intuitive, and with respect to, say, adultery, the Bible itself even has examples of moral/cultural relativism (e.g. forefathers had concubines and multiple wives, Canaanite religion involved prostitution).

Indeed, the fact that a religion has withstood the test of time does mean something. It doesn't prove anything, but it does mean something, interpret it as you may. Also, you ask if I happen to know the frequency of wars in the absence of religion; all I have to say to this is, do you?

I do not know, that is why I asked.  You seemed to implicate that the absence of religion would mean more war/crimes/etc... did you not?

Second, of course moral philosophy can reinvent itself; else we wouldn't have "two thousand years" of moral philosophy. That's why for every Kierkegaard we have a Nietzsche. There's no monopoly on such matters. Christianity is but one religion, one philosophy; nowhere in Christian morality is there an explicit clause for intervening in other religions. It may express views on other religions, of the "wrongness" of other religions, but do not all philosophies, all scientific theories, all civil governments, tacitly declare all on the contrary to be false? Is that not a precondition of a conclusion? Is "thou shalt have no other gods before me" not the same negation of other religions as the theory of relativity is a negation of the ether? or as democracy is of monarchy? Does not the statement, a separable metric space has a countable dense subset, not negate any contrary field axioms?

Christianity seems to be quite vague in itself.  Many denominations tend to include doctrine not included in the Canon (e.g. stories of Lucifer in Catholicism).  In fact, the history of the Canon/Church is quite brutal, and frankly, scary.  To this day, I am at a loss of explanation as to why these particular books, among hundreds, were chosen.  Some of these books are thought to be outright shams (e.g. it is thought, through etymological evidence, that Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul).
A good scientist would not declare anything correct/incorrect without proper reasoning and experimentation.  However, ground truth is reality (i.e. experimental results), not ideals, principles and opinions.  Mathematicians, too, can only dictate correctness/incorrectness by what is dictated by theory and axioms.  There are known mathematical questions that are unanswerable (for example, cardinality).  Religion does not have the ability to objectively discern Truth, because it is not rooted in reality.  Many religions have come and gone with nothing to show but a cultural imprint.  What does this tell you about religion in general?  What makes, for example, Christianity so special when compared with the now dead Mithraism?  What is to prevent Christianity from the same fate as Mithraism or any other dead religion?  Test of time is meaningless...Zoroastrianism is the oldest, but its on its death bed with dwindling followers.

A conclusion is a conclusion is a conclusion, is a negation of the contrary. If you do not find enough reasoning to support the conclusions of Christian morality, you should read how a religious philosopher or theologian supports it, like Kierkegaard for one.

Well, history seems to indicate that morality is relative...what makes Christian morality more correct than another morality?  I tend to think Christian morality causes psychological damage, especially, with respect to sex, marriage, and sexuality.  There are examples of urban legends purported to be Christian in origin regarding masturbation.  Though research has shown this to be normal human behavior. Research has also shown correlation between reduced risk of prostate cancer and masturbating...what does this tell you about baseless morals?  What about young men who psychologically torture themselves because they feel guilty for being a normal human being by committing sexual acts?  Christianity helps you accept yourself by teaching you that man is evil...nothing like paradoxes.

Third, you laud the LHC for its potential, or more generally science for its accomplishments, and wonder how religion can measure up to that. But I ask you how many lives has religion saved, in the past 7,000 years of civilization? How much comfort and conviction and meaning does it give people? How many bonds does it make? How much order has it created? (Once again you must not focus on the bad branches; a religious war is but one branch of religion, just as an atomic bomb is but one branch of science.)

In the absence of religion, how many lives would be lost in the past 7000 years?  Why do you suppose people need to fabricate meaning to feel comfortable?  Humans are naturally social, wouldn't they bond regardless of religion?  Couldn't there be order without religion?  You seem to implicate things that cannot be known to support your argument...

And as an aside, I was not "conditioned".

We're all conditioned man :)
This is why it is important to seek out the perspectives of others.

[Ender]

[...] or are "seperated" [...]

separated*

I find it very odd that you correct my spelling errors here, and yet can't be bothered to capitalize anything and use 'lol' slang in IM, at least when speaking to me. I honestly don't care, I just find it weird. ;) Did I ever end up unblocking you, anyways? I honestly can't remember.

I need to, if I haven't. I actually kinda miss talking to you. :-O (Total and complete tangent.)

Ok.

[topaz~]

I would love to respond to that post

grr

[MyndFyre]

For example, evolution can be proven - it can be observed directly - but one can't prove that it describes where we came from, and therefore that it precludes intelligent design.

Ah, stop right there!

Evolution on a micro level has been directly observed.  Evolution on a macro level (entire new orders, classes, phyla) has not been observed and arguably will be impossible to observe.  Consider what we know about that process in terms of genetics - a major differentiation between species is in terms of chromosomal count.  However, when we observe genetic mutations that result in extra chromosomes, such as trisomy-21, we get defects that would be prohibitive to advancement through natural selection, such as Down's Syndrome.  (additional chromosomal problems)

I'm not saying that evolution can't be observed - I just think that it's incorrect to say "evolution is a directly observable fact," because it's not really the whole story.

Scientific theories can't be proven. Proof is reserved for axiomatic systems, like mathematics. As nslay says, there's always a chance that any established scientific theory could be wrong, e.g. the effect of gravity is just a perpetual coincidence.

I didn't once in my post say the word "proof" or any of its variants.

I'm not advocating one position or another.  I'm asking people to be intellectually honest when they claim evolution to be decidedly factual; on a small scale it's clear, but on a large scale it's not.

[Ender]

For example, evolution can be proven - it can be observed directly - but one can't prove that it describes where we came from, and therefore that it precludes intelligent design.

Ah, stop right there!

Evolution on a micro level has been directly observed.  Evolution on a macro level (entire new orders, classes, phyla) has not been observed and arguably will be impossible to observe.  Consider what we know about that process in terms of genetics - a major differentiation between species is in terms of chromosomal count.  However, when we observe genetic mutations that result in extra chromosomes, such as trisomy-21, we get defects that would be prohibitive to advancement through natural selection, such as Down's Syndrome.  (additional chromosomal problems)

I'm not saying that evolution can't be observed - I just think that it's incorrect to say "evolution is a directly observable fact," because it's not really the whole story.

Scientific theories can't be proven. Proof is reserved for axiomatic systems, like mathematics. As nslay says, there's always a chance that any established scientific theory could be wrong, e.g. the effect of gravity is just a perpetual coincidence.

I didn't once in my post say the word "proof" or any of its variants.

I'm not advocating one position or another.  I'm asking people to be intellectually honest when they claim evolution to be decidedly factual; on a small scale it's clear, but on a large scale it's not.

I used your quote because it was the lazy thing to do.

Oh, and evolution is a fact, on the large scale as well as the small. It's called "geological records". The "Record of the Rocks" (H.G. Wells) corroborates evolution to the same degree of certainty as is held in any other fact we take for granted. Why are you so obsessed with directly observing something? Direct observation is but a pretension of the short-sighted, a despot of empirical study, a once-honest method that has been malformed by the malignant. Is the French Revolution not a historical occurrence, because no one alive today ever lived to observe it? Does gravity not exist, because there is no apparent impetus in action at a distance? We see the apple fall, yes, but we do not see what causes it to fall, we can only imagine, we can only reason, just as we can only reason with evolution.

So why does light matter so much to you? It is only one form of conveying information, it is only one form of evidence. Have you ever heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? When we observe something, it changes. You place too much value on light as a means of information. It is but one form of evidence, just as a geological record is another, and it is absurd to think that any form of evidence, in sufficient quantity and uniform direction, is deficient. Any notion to the contrary is what we call pseudo-science, to euphemize the practice, or anti-science, to state it bluntly.

[MyndFyre]

Oh, and evolution is a fact, on the large scale as well as the small. It's called "geological records". The "Record of the Rocks" (H.G. Wells) corroborates evolution to the same degree of certainty as is held in any other fact we take for granted. Why are you so obsessed with directly observing something? Direct observation is but a pretension of the short-sighted, a despot of empirical study, a once-honest method that has been malformed by the malignant. Is the French Revolution not a historical occurrence, because no one alive today ever lived to observe it? Does gravity not exist, because there is no apparent impetus in action at a distance? We see the apple fall, yes, but we do not see what causes it to fall, we can only imagine, we can only reason, just as we can only reason with evolution.

You can call it a "despot of empirical study," but observation is the key to the scientific process, without which we might as well be blindfolded and throwing a dart.

[Ender]

I'm not saying observation is not key to the scientific process... I'm saying that direct observation, in the way that you misconstrue it, e.g. the light that arrives at your pupils, is not the only form of observation.

It does not matter that evolution has not been directly observed on a large scale. You put too much weight on "direct observation," and misconstrue it in the first place. Macro-evolution has been observed through a geological record, which is just as authentic as the human senses that you claim to comprise direct observation.

I don't want to hear how you made no claims about the authenticity of large scale evolution, since you did indeed make implications.