Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is why I dislike so much philosophy. It requires faith in a premise, faith I am not willing to give because the premise isn’t perfect.[/quote]

Distrust of philosophy and philosophers is probably a wise choice for the majority of people, but like science, it is nothing more than a method of discovery. It is involved with more than just espousing belief and rhetoric. It is a rigorous pursuit that requires strict attention to consistency. For that reason I believe it is an indispensable tool for the self-proclaimed intellectual to pursue – and like any art form requires the ability to craft better methods and become more skilled in its use.

Of course, it is of little use to constantly walk around in philosophical la-la land without being able to apply it to practical matters. Without practicality philosophy amounts to little more than the love of ones own voice.

62

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is why I dislike so much philosophy. It requires faith in a premise, faith I am not willing to give because the premise isn’t perfect.

Distrust of philosophy and philosophers is probably a wise choice for the majority of people, but like science, it is nothing more than a method of discovery. It is involved with more than just espousing belief and rhetoric. It is a rigorous pursuit that requires strict attention to consistency. For that reason I believe it is an indispensable tool for the self-proclaimed intellectual to pursue – and like any art form requires the ability to craft better methods and become more skilled in its use.

Of course, it is of little use to constantly walk around in philosophical la-la land without being able to apply it to practical matters. Without practicality philosophy amounts to little more than the love of ones own voice.[/quote]

I agree lifty. Like most disciplines, philosophy requires rigorous & merciless attention to one’s own methods.

Much of the current philosophy I read in college was thinly-veiled (or, not so thinly veiled) propaganda: deconstruction, Derrida, etc. I often was left with questions about where contemporary philosophy was/is going.

And even though I know very, very little about it, I sometimes wonder that about theoretical physics too - for example, when I hear Brian Greene talk about string theory, I sometimes wonder if theoretical physics is losing it’s mind…I mean it’s way. It’s beautiful, and sounds nice, but one can question whether it’s even a falsifiable theory - and, if not, is it science?

63

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
And even though I know very, very little about it, I sometimes wonder that about theoretical physics too - for example, when I hear Brian Greene talk about string theory, I sometimes wonder if theoretical physics is losing it’s mind…
[/quote]
Don’t even get me started on theoretical physics writers. What things have been written to sell books…?

You can tell the real physicists apart from the mystics because they actually get paid to teach or work in a lab and not paid to write pop science.

64

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…

In many ways, I believe the more one becomes entrenched in the philosophic pursuit of knowledge the more important faith becomes.

This is why I dislike so much philosophy. It requires faith in a premise, faith I am not willing to give because the premise isn’t perfect.[/quote]

Not all philosophy requires faith in an assumed premise. Aristotle, for instance, begins all of this work with empirical observation. Likewise, the Aristotelian tradition through the middle ages, the great classic “empiricists”, and the modern analytic tradition all attempt to base their work on empirical observation and logic.

but if you will not accept a premise that isn’t totally justified, what can you accept? no matter what, there are always assumptions made–in science, philosophy, and religion. (things taken on faith, if you will).

65

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Much of the current philosophy I read in college was thinly-veiled (or, not so thinly veiled) propaganda: deconstruction, Derrida, etc. I often was left with questions about where contemporary philosophy was/is going.

[/quote]

it sounds like you only read one tradition.

perhaps that is why my analytical approach confuses you, or why you do not “see” my arguments.

66

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
And even though I know very, very little about it, I sometimes wonder that about theoretical physics too - for example, when I hear Brian Greene talk about string theory, I sometimes wonder if theoretical physics is losing it’s mind…

Don’t even get me started on theoretical physics writers. What things have been written to sell books…?

You can tell the real physicists apart from the mystics because they actually get paid to teach or work in a lab and not paid to write pop science.[/quote]

Not that i really disagree with you, but what of Einstein then?

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
You don’t know that God is not your coffee cup.

God isn’t my cup of tea.[/quote]

…Nice.

68

[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali, what’s this religion where actions don’t matter but genes do?

PerfectCircle, as far as war and violence are concerned, money and power beats the crap out of religion. You’ll have to be naive to believe the rationale presented by religious leaders.[/quote]

I wont deny that money and power are the major instigators in war. But, why does religion even have to come into it. Money and power are the obvious reasons, why justify the actions of war with religious quotes and “God” references when all they really want is oil, real estate and power. Is it only to sway the believers that god has sanctioned the action in some way and therefore they should support it?

69

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali, what’s this religion where actions don’t matter but genes do?

PerfectCircle, as far as war and violence are concerned, money and power beats the crap out of religion. You’ll have to be naive to believe the rationale presented by religious leaders.

I wont deny that money and power are the major instigators in war. But, why does religion even have to come into it. Money and power are the obvious reasons, why justify the actions of war with religious quotes and “God” references when all they really want is oil, real estate and power. Is it only to sway the believers that god has sanctioned the action in some way and therefore they should support it?[/quote]

Perhaps because religious rhetoric is pretty powerful stuff?

70

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Stokedporkypoo,

Your so-called “counter example” is complete and utter nonsense held together - barely - by only the faintest hint of sincerity. It is not to be taken seriously - and would not be taken seriously by any theologian with any amount of training or knowledge.

I am not an expert theologian - though I have spent the better part of three decades immersed in theology, some of it quite complex. And I am not an expert philosopher, though I majored in philosophy & classics in college.

However, I am quite capable of knowing bullshit when I read it. And it is quite clear to me that you, sir, are a bullshit artist playing at being an intellectual.

well, since you seemed to like my counter-example so much, you can read what i wrote about it in my above post.

also, your claims would be more believable if you actually seemed to grasp logic. Really, a philosophy student inept at logic? how did you ever pass? And classics, do you speak greek and latin?

this is the interwebzs, as some like to call it. And here, as Socrates says, it is not the person giving the argument, but the argument itself that is important (which is why i never talk of credentials, i’d much rather just examine what people actually say). ie, show me some argumentation skills and a basic grasp of logic.[/quote]

Guys, sorry but i had to stop reading you discussions.
This is kind of my point. It all gets so deep and confusing that it becomes near impossible to get any clear perception of what the point is for any of this.
It just seem like one justifying their argument to the other but both knowing in their heart that they themselves are right.

Thats fine, but what does it achieve??

71

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
But to some they dont question it.
It doesn’t even warrant questioning because it has no meaning to them…it just isn’t necessary to live their lives

Which is my position. I consider my self an atheist. I live with out any consideration for divinity.

Agnosticism is an untenable position.

You keep trying to redefine words. Agnosticism merely means you don’t know enough to determine if there is or isn’t a god. You are clearly an atheist as you appear to have no doubt in your mind that god does not exist. These are not the same.[/quote]

Why is there even a label for “Non believers” other than to justify to a believer that they exist.
Others like myself don’t even care enough to need a label. It is meaningless.
You say “Agnosticism merely means you don’t know enough to determine if there is or isn’t a god.” It means nothing to some. The need to know or not know isn’t even there, it has no place in their lives. It is only something that others label them/me with.

72

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.

I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.

I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia

Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.

So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.
[/quote]

No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?

73

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali, what’s this religion where actions don’t matter but genes do?

PerfectCircle, as far as war and violence are concerned, money and power beats the crap out of religion. You’ll have to be naive to believe the rationale presented by religious leaders.

I wont deny that money and power are the major instigators in war. But, why does religion even have to come into it. Money and power are the obvious reasons, why justify the actions of war with religious quotes and “God” references when all they really want is oil, real estate and power. Is it only to sway the believers that god has sanctioned the action in some way and therefore they should support it?

Perhaps because religious rhetoric is pretty powerful stuff?
[/quote]

True, it is easy to persuade those that are waiting to be told what they must think.

74

I would just like to note at this point that i have absolutely no training or teachings about religion or philosophy.
All my comments are made from my own views and observations. I make no claim to being all knowing on the subject.
Thanks for making this such and interesting discussion guys.

75

[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali, what’s this religion where actions don’t matter but genes do?[/quote]

Huh?

76

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.

I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.

I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia

Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.

So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.

No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?[/quote]

That’s a good point. But science is not all that open to new ideas either. Just looking at history will show that. We just happen to live in a time where people are somewhat more open to new ideas. That is why science is able to move at a faster pace. But that wasn’t always the case. And even today most of science is slow (IMO) to accept new concepts, which is funny to me because most of science is based on theory, not repeatable demonstration. So what they are arguing about is really just someone’s ideas vs someone else’s ideas, just like religion.

77

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.

I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.

I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia

Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.

So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.

No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?

That’s a good point. But science is not all that open to new ideas either. Just looking at history will show that. We just happen to live in a time where people are somewhat more open to new ideas. That is why science is able to move at a faster pace. But that wasn’t always the case. And even today most of science is slow (IMO) to accept new concepts, which is funny to me because most of science is based on theory, not repeatable demonstration. So what they are arguing about is really just someone’s ideas vs someone else’s ideas, just like religion.
[/quote]

Well said, but, the science we see in the general media is usually something to appease the masses. The science that is being done by students or other scientist with years of unrecognized study and is being done through the want to solve a problem they feel can be solved will always be there.

These people do it because they want to continue the growth of what can be achieved and take it as far as they are able. That is then a platform for another to continue their work in a direction that the preceding person never even thought possible. This is purely for the advancement of the needs they feel are required.

You are right in your comment about science being more open now. Again though it has been shown through history that anyone who worked in the field of science was persecuted for their actions by the more powerful religious sects that ruled the masses.
Hundreds of years ago you were thought of as a witch and put to death, all because you went against the teachings of God.

78

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali, what’s this religion where actions don’t matter but genes do?

Huh?[/quote]

Earlier in the thread Petermus wrote: “its not a title you inherit from your parents”. To which you replied: “All religions state that, don’t they? Well… with maybe one exception I won’t name for fear of this thread being hijacked.”.

So what is that exception?

79

[quote]lixy wrote:
Earlier in the thread Petermus wrote: “its not a title you inherit from your parents”. To which you replied: “All religions state that, don’t they? Well… with maybe one exception I won’t name for fear of this thread being hijacked.”.

So what is that exception?[/quote]

Oh, right I see what you meant. I’m talking about extremist Islam.

Don’t pretend it’s not a religion, because it has a substantial following. The differences between extremist Islam and what I call normal Islam is like comparing Protestants to Catholics. Same religion, different interpretations.

EDIT: However wrong those interpretations may be.

80

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Earlier in the thread Petermus wrote: “its not a title you inherit from your parents”. To which you replied: “All religions state that, don’t they? Well… with maybe one exception I won’t name for fear of this thread being hijacked.”.

So what is that exception?

Oh, right I see what you meant. I’m talking about extremist Islam.

Don’t pretend it’s not a religion, because it has a substantial following. The differences between extremist Islam and what I call normal Islam is like comparing Protestants to Catholics. Same religion, different interpretations.[/quote]

Enlighten us then about this “extremist Islam”.

Because I sure never heard of any religion that privileges blood over actions.