If they fit the definition of dogma, why would they not be, and more importantly, why are you getting so bent out of shape about this,not to mention insulted? Even assuming you had assumed dogma means religious stuff only, I am failing to see insult or the definition of the word is putting you off here.
Are you saying it's dogma that a meter is the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain to me how this is a strawman.Strawman is made of straw.You think we should remove all religion from the world instead of say... studying it to see if it can unlock a cure or treatment for neurodegenerative diseases?
Because he didn't say we should remove all religions. Lying about your opponent's position immediately before refuting or disagreeing with it, is a strawman.
What he has been saying, and what I would wholeheartedly agree with, is that the wisdom of religion should be scrutinized by the eyes of reason. The parts that don't hold up (don't eat shrimp, stone gay people, etc.) should be chucked out. He's further saying that he SUSPECTS that the parts that will hold up are things we hold to be self-evident today, like you shouldn't kill people or rape people or take their s@~#.
Basically, if the virtues of your religion can be boiled down to "don't be a dick", then there's no reason to keep the emotionally resonant portion of religion that says the world was created in 6 days, or other falsehoods, just because it helps to convince the rubes not to be dicks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've also talked about how successful religion is at spreading it's message. I still think that is valid. Science is full of awful communicators. Religion is full of awesome communicators. That is something science needs to learn to do.
Ideally, I agree. I want to see a world where we can just lay out facts, have them be understood and move on. That isn't human psychology though, as much as we wish it was. I'm not saying we need fantastical stories to get science accepted more broadly, I'm saying we need to focus on the compelling narrative that amazes and inspires.
I highly recommend this book, one of the things it talks about is ethical development. It presents some theories and hypothesis on how to encourage and improve critical thought in children, which is a key element in ethics. One of the methods talked about is playing with a child and making up ridiculous stories for them, or asking them to imagine ridiculous scenarios. An example from the book is while walking down the street with a child, asking them where a lion would hide. The purpose isn't to train them to watch out for lions, it's to get them to think about the perspective of someone other than themselves, a key element of positive moral behavior.
The majority of the people in the world will never be scientists. I think the world would be a better place if all of them placed their trust in science, regardless of any other beliefs they might hold. I'm putting forth the notion that to date, religion is the best tool we have ever seen for spreading and teaching difficult and complex concepts. Atheists account for roughly 2.3% of the worlds population, non-religious another 12%, so I feel comfortable saying that religion is pretty successful.
I love watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos. More science should be taught like that, though I think even that could be improved to be more compelling. Not through better effects, budget or updating, but rather just finding the central themes and learning to teach them better. Science is full of wonderful stories, but scientists are horrible at telling them.
That is like saying car salesman should make cars, because they are better at communicating about the car.
I think a closer comparison would be betamax vs vhs.
If your message isn't accessible to the layman, how can you expect them to understand it?
Also, sales and marketing are important aspects for a car manufacturer. Even the car manufacturer's that have a high level of engineering in their vehicles participate in advertising. Can you name a profitable car company that doesn't employ salespeople?
I'm not saying that the methodology of science needs to change. I'm saying that the way that science communicates to those who aren't scientists needs to change.
A guy goes away for some hours and everyone takes up his* position and defends it admirably. Thanks, all. :)
What he has been saying, and what I would wholeheartedly agree with, is that the wisdom of religion should be scrutinized by the eyes of reason. The parts that don't hold up (don't eat shrimp, stone gay people, etc.) should be chucked out. He's further saying that he SUSPECTS that the parts that will hold up are things we hold to be self-evident today, like you shouldn't kill people or rape people or take their s$#*.
Exactly. If we can get at the same stuff worth preserving (Which again I'm still waiting for a list. If there's so much there it should be easy to come up with one.) with science, we can communicate it independent of religion, its truth is both independent of religion and ascertainable independent of religion, what do we need religion for? Especially considering the enormous cost in how it breeds the very habits of anti-epistemology that are our primary enemy in the quest to have a more accurate understanding of life, the universe, and everything to begin with?
Now if one wants to go off and have a bit of harmless fun, great. If going to church amounts to the same thing as going to the theater, the brothel, eating one's favorite foods, hitting up Six Flags, or whatever, that's fine. I've got no objection at all to enjoying fantasy for recreation. If I did I'd have a lot of explaining to do about my tiefling sorcerer, gnome summoner, human conjurer, or quarter-Atlantean superhero. But that's very obviously not how the vast majority of religious people treat religion.
*Only in the sense that I'm arguing it too, of course. We can share the position!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities. . . .
Dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century. . .
Today, It is sometimes used as a synonym for systematic theology.
The scientific method is dogma. Any number of laws, are dogma. And these are insulting?
The scientific method is about as far from that description of a dogma as I can imagined at this point of the night.
The scientific method is entirely open to dispute, you can even test it against other modes of thought. It isn't accepted without reason or evidence, after all, it is a mode of enquiry constructed purely from reason, and has the single best hit rate of any mode of enquiry, the evidence of its success, finds its way into every aspect of our entire lives, even down to the level of our ability to have this discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread needs more Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Every thread needs more Tyson, they just don't know it yet.
A guy goes away for some hours and everyone takes up his* position and defends it admirably. Thanks, all. :)
What he has been saying, and what I would wholeheartedly agree with, is that the wisdom of religion should be scrutinized by the eyes of reason. The parts that don't hold up (don't eat shrimp, stone gay people, etc.) should be chucked out. He's further saying that he SUSPECTS that the parts that will hold up are things we hold to be self-evident today, like you shouldn't kill people or rape people or take their s$#*.Exactly. If we can get at the same stuff worth preserving (Which again I'm still waiting for a list. If there's so much there it should be easy to come up with one.) with science, we can communicate it independent of religion, its truth is both independent of religion and ascertainable independent of religion, what do we need religion for? Especially considering the enormous cost in how it breeds the very habits of anti-epistemology that are our primary enemy in the quest to have a more accurate understanding of life, the universe, and everything to begin with?
Now if one wants to go off and have a bit of harmless fun, great. If going to church amounts to the same thing as going to the theater, the brothel, eating one's favorite foods, hitting up Six Flags, or whatever, that's fine. I've got no objection at all to enjoying fantasy for recreation. If I did I'd have a lot of explaining to do about my tiefling sorcerer, gnome summoner, human conjurer, or quarter-Atlantean superhero. But that's very obviously not how the vast majority of religious people treat religion.
*Only in the sense that I'm arguing it too, of course. We can share the position!
Damn it, I was going to post this argument, but I had to work.*Shakes fist*
stuffs
All hail the Omnimessiah?
stuffsAll hail the Omnimessiah?
Hehe, actually, I would venture the Mechanicum's religious bent hinders their learning process far more than it ever helps them. The Dark Mechanicum are the true critical thinkers.
I guess the direction much of this discussion seems to be going is the whole “Science is good at discovering facts but it lacks the ability to unite people and get them all moving in the same direction.”
Well of course not, the approaches of science, such as the scientific method and critical thinking, work by pulling apart something to basically see if it “works.” It’s a way of asking questions not inventing answers.
And why think uniting people and getting them all moving in the same direction is even a good thing at all, anyway? Especially if the premise that is motivating them is flawed in the first place?
Look I’m not even irreligious myself, I have a strong faith in the Christian God of my parents(though how much I believe in him on any given day has as much to do with my mood and what I’m currently thinking about then anything else.) But I agree with much of what Samnell said earlier. I dream of a world where we teach kids HOW to think, so they can discover answers for themselves, not WHAT to think, because that is going to come back to bite them in the tushy, it just is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And why think uniting people and getting them all moving in the same direction is even a good thing at all, anyway? Especially if the premise that is motivating them is flawed in the first place?
Doing it wouldn't say much about our integrity either. Inevitably the faithful are going to find out. They're not idiots, after all. They deserve honesty. When they discover they've been conned, that's going to backfire severely. If the idea is to get them to just accept "trust science" we cut our own throats to do that through misleading them: "Trust us even though we're lying to you and you caught us doing it."
But I agree with much of what Samnell said earlier. I dream of a world where we teach kids HOW to think, so they can discover answers for themselves, not WHAT to think, because that is going to come back to bite them in the tushy, it just is.
My fantasy curriculum would probably begin with these:
Anti-epistemologyBelief in Belief
Making Beliefs Pay Rent in Anticipated Experiences
There's probably more from similar urls that I haven't gotten to yet. I put anti-epistemology first because I've been a bit on about it lately, but the other two are biggies as well.
|
Because science is not Dogma.
Dogma is something that cannot be or should not be questioned. The results of scientific exploration CAN and MUST be questioned, continually, as being a part of the scientific method. Hence science CANNOT be dogmatic.
Just like the scientific method, perhaps? That's not the one true way, ie dogma?
You can question the Geographic Dogma of North and South Dakota, but the results of your inquiry will invariably lead to the original assertion. That makes it a fact, not a dogma or doctrine.
Actually, assuming one takes North and South to some kind of extreme, that would be fact AND dogma.
|
|
Are you saying it's dogma that a meter is the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second?If they fit the definition of dogma, why would they not be, and more importantly, why are you getting so bent out of shape about this,not to mention insulted? Even assuming you had assumed dogma means religious stuff only, I am failing to see insult or the definition of the word is putting you off here.
That's a pretty amazing reason to be insulted. Wait,I still don't get it.
Let put it this way, if "a meter is the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second?" is some sort of held truth within a group, then it is dogma. If it is not some held belief, but something that needs to be varified before use or general acceptance, then it is not dogma.
So, so far we have failed to establish a definition for religion, faith, belief, atheism, (multiple times), religion, and now the fairly clear dogma.
I'm going to guess that the main reason for this is that it puts "the religious" and atheists right there next to each other, again, and that basically saps a lot of angry atheist's "holier than thou", prove it or I'm right by default lack of arguments on the exact same level as their "opponents", instead of above them as they presumed.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like the scientific method, perhaps? That's not the one true way, ie dogma?
Nope, just the current way. If you can find a better one, the scientific community will move to it.
Can you say the same of religion?
Edit: Really, the main determinant for something being dogma is 'are you allowed to question it?'
Science, by default, is meant to be questioned. What you see of science as being 'unquestionable' is simply the scientific community saying 'you better have serious evidence behind you'. And 'God did/said it' is not serious evidence.
Just like the scientific method, perhaps? That's not the one true way, ie dogma?
Nope. First it's a category error to describe methods as dogmas when dogmas are beliefs rather than practices. But let's set that aside for a moment.
You can possibly get true (or increasingly accurate) knowledge from other methods, so it's not the one true way. The historical-critical method can produce knowledge, if not to the same degree of confidence that science can. You can even, I suppose, just guess correctly but of course that's the acme of unreliability and stretching the general conception of knowledge a bit.
Science is the most efficient and reliable method of generating an increasingly accurate body of information (the biggest part of it being models, actually) about the universe and the only one which is actually self-correcting in any reliable way. If science is wrong, we can confidently depend on find that out fix the situation.
Which is why when someone makes a knowledge claim the first thing you should always do is check it with science. The probability of it being true if its in serious conflict with science is, while not zero, going to be very small. It's far more likely, for example, that someone made an observational or interpretation error, or just lied, than that they did actually measured a force that did not equal mass times acceleration. If in fact they didn't make any mistakes or lie, that would be really cool and we would find out with some scrutiny. Such a person would probably be making a trip to Sweden in the future.
The previous paragraph is a demonstration of why the beliefs we arrive at about the universe are not themselves dogmas, by the way. :)
This thread needs more Neil deGrasse Tyson.Every thread needs more Tyson, they just don't know it yet.
The world needs more Tyson. Which is fundamentally my point. I can count on my fingers the number of great science advocates in past 100 years, while the list of influential religious advocates would become a TLDR post.
Scientists too often assume that dry academic facts are enough to persuade large groups of people because they themselves are persuaded by such things. They forgot that laymen don't have the advanced educational foundation that they do.
I'm not advocating indoctrination or unthinking belief, I'm talking about improving the methods of education so that people are inspired and have a better foundation that improves their understanding.
Those links are interesting Samnell, how would you apply them to how you teach a 5 year old? Because that is the crux of what I'm trying to get at. Teaching the basic concepts of critical thinking that can mold the way a person thinks for the rest of their life.
|
|
Just like the scientific method, perhaps? That's not the one true way, ie dogma?Nope, just the current way. If you can find a better one, the scientific community will move to it.
Can you say the same of religion?
Edit: Really, the main determinant for something being dogma is 'are you allowed to question it?'
Science, by default, is meant to be questioned. What you see of science as being 'unquestionable' is simply the scientific community saying 'you better have serious evidence behind you'. And 'God did/said it' is not serious evidence.
Obviously. Many religious adapt with scientific discovery, and in fact much scientific discovery is innitiated by, directly or indirectly by religious individuals or groups. As we learn more aboutthe past, we have new pieces to add to our puzzle about what religious books say happened, or more correctly what we believe they mean or infere.
The scientific method, on the other hand, is not a place holder until a better one is developed. That is the basis of all scientific study. Portions may be added to it in specific cases, but it is the building block, the most basic rule for all scientifically viable testing., and that is not questionable.
That is taken as a face by the entirety of the scientific comunity world wide, just as washing your hands before and after leaving a patients room is taken as a unquestionable fact for all medical staff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scientific method, on the other hand, is not a place holder until a better one is developed. That is the basis of all scientific study. Portions may be added to it in specific cases, but it is the building block, the most basic rule for all scientifically viable testing., and that is not questionable.
That is taken as a face by the entirety of the scientific comunity world wide, just as washing your hands before and after leaving a patients room is taken as a unquestionable fact for all medical staff.
But it's not taken at face value. It has to be independently verified to be accepted as true. Questioning the validity of something is literally the opposite of what dogma means.
|
|
Nope. First it's a category error to describe methods as dogmas when dogmas are beliefs rather than practices. But let's set that aside for a moment.
Yep, it's still a dogma. The belief is the practice.
You can possibly get true (or increasingly accurate) knowledge from other methods, so it's not the one true way.
You infact can, BUT, science does not accept those methods because it leaves to much room for error, unaccounted variables, etc. . . Hence, right back at scientific dogma.
I'm not advocating indoctrination or unthinking belief, I'm talking about improving the methods of education so that people are inspired and have a better foundation that improves their understanding.Those links are interesting Samnell, how would you apply them to how you teach a 5 year old?
I would defer the question to someone with training in the relevant pedagogy. Mine's geared to teenagers who have a vastly more complicated cognitive toolkit. The only things I can think that would obviously transfer involve repetition. Make a song or poem out of it, for example. They'll mostly just get the words, but those words can be unpacked in later years when they've got better brains to work with.
We already do a little of it. I recall having some lessons about the difference between the truth and lies when I was that age.
|
|
Beckett,
The washing of hands is only taken as fact because someone tested whether it reduced disease in hospital. After much scorn, he showed that it did. People then changed their minds based on the new evidence. So, once again, your mendacious attempts to portray science as dogmatic fail.
Actually, no. More recent studies have shown that this has the effect of reducing immunities over time, as it kills both good and bad germs. It is mostly for appearances now. Also, this has nothing to do with removing science from dogma. It is possible to have a reason for something, and it still be dogma. Because it works best is a pretty dang good reason to hold something as true.
The scientific method, on the other hand, is not a place holder until a better one is developed. That is the basis of all scientific study. Portions may be added to it in specific cases, but it is the building block, the most basic rule for all scientifically viable testing., and that is not questionable.
Let me get this straight, because you're trying to pull some serious semantic gymnastics here and I'm not about to let it slide.
You're saying that the very idea that "everything should be questioned", which is the essence of the scientific method, when accepted in scientific research, is itself dogma. That would mean that, you believe, the only way in which everything is questioned, is if some people believed that things shouldn't be questioned, which would then negate itself.
EDIT: I'll just restate for conciseness. Dogma is a belief that it is improper to question. Beckett is saying that the belief that everything should be questioned, is itself not to be questioned, and thus is dogma.
I hope you see the problem with this statement.
Heck, some religions, such as certain interpretations of Buddhism, work fine with atheism.
I think we call those 'philosophies.'
Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. First it's a category error to describe methods as dogmas when dogmas are beliefs rather than practices. But let's set that aside for a moment.Yep, it's still a dogma. The belief is the practice.
Do you intend to milk your equivocation fallacy much further? We've been pretty clear about what we mean by dogma, repeatedly. Your attempts to ignore those statements and tar us with the brush of dogma for behaviors which do not contain the distinguishing traits we have laid out are, well, really transparent.
You can possibly get true (or increasingly accurate) knowledge from other methods, so it's not the one true way.
You infact can, BUT, science does not accept those methods because it leaves to much room for error, unaccounted variables, etc. . . Hence, right back at scientific dogma.
In other words, those methods aren't as good as science. You said it yourself: they are more prone to error. Thanks for agreeing. Pass Go, collect $200, and deposit your faith in this circular receptacle. We'll send you your Secular Humanist card in the mail. Don't worry about addresses, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy already knows where everyone lives.
You know, I think I'll flip this around for the sake of argument. Let's say science is a dogma. In fact, let's say it's a religion. That's right, a full-blown religion. If science is a religion, it's the religion that heals the sick (right here and now, not just in miracle stories, and of real observable maladies instead of invisible plagues) and reveals the secrets of the heavens. The priests of science can, quite blatantly and without any hemming and hawing about metaphors, verifiably in front of everyone whether they believe in it or not, produce a genuine faith-based miracle. Using the principles of their religion they have literally gotten people to fly and even walk on the Moon.
So we could toss out all the verbiage. We could agree completely with your claims about science and you know what? Our would dogmas still beat yours hands-down. When's the last time one of your miracles didn't run away and hide when we applied critical scrutiny to it? Our gods must be greater than your god to be able to work such wonders.
I'm not advocating indoctrination or unthinking belief, I'm talking about improving the methods of education so that people are inspired and have a better foundation that improves their understanding.Those links are interesting Samnell, how would you apply them to how you teach a 5 year old?
I would defer the question to someone with training in the relevant pedagogy. Mine's geared to teenagers who have a vastly more complicated cognitive toolkit. The only things I can think that would obviously transfer involve repetition. Make a song or poem out of it, for example. They'll mostly just get the words, but those words can be unpacked in later years when they've got better brains to work with.
We already do a little of it. I recall having some lessons about the difference between the truth and lies when I was that age.
We do, but we need to do better.
While not aimed at young children, I think this clip is a good example of how the narrative of science can be used to educate and inform the average person. Even this could be improved upon, but it's a story of personal hardship and perseverance, integrity and self-examination and I think highlighting those human elements can make science more approachable for more people.
The book I linked earlier was very approachable for me (Changing the Bully Who Rules the World), because the author paired her essays with works of fiction. The pieces of fiction were used to highlight the concept that she wanted to talk about and gives the reader easy access to the concept she talks about before she talks about them.
Metaphors are extremely powerful in the ability to convey complicated concepts. Metaphors are the primary language of religion, where religion goes wrong is that the metaphors take the place of truth instead of the intended message within the metaphor. That I agree should be gotten rid of, because it is the heart of the discord that happens when religion interacts with the world.
|
Beckett, the washing of hands is only taken as fact because someone tested whether it reduced disease in hospital. After much scorn, he showed that it did. People then changed their minds based on the new evidence. So, once again, your mendacious attempts to portray science as dogmatic fail.
Actually, no. More recent studies have shown that this has the effect of reducing immunities over time, as it kills both good and bad germs. It is mostly for appearances now.
Dr. Beckett, as I'm sure you know, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus is a very major concern in first world hospitals, and that one reason is the impetus behind alcohol-based hand sanitizer in every room and corridor.
good stuffs
Heck lets take it a step further: You don't even have to be a member of the church and we can still teach you to:
Throw lightning, kill someone from two miles away, fly, make alcohol, travel at high speeds, reduce your risk of infection and/or disease (in some cases outright prevent it), and cure many said infections and/or diseases faster.What's more we are generally willing to do it for very little in cost if not free of charge and without converting you to the faith. The 'magic' will work regardless of your understanding and regardless of your faith or prayers.
I think there may be a degree of misunderstanding on my part here (Because I'm a dumbass! :) ), so I'm going to try to focus on in where I think we disagree. I don't, for example, object at all to teaching how we found out things in science. I think it's not done enough, often because teachers don't know themselves or the crush of time and the fact that it's harder to cram into a standardized test mean that such narratives get cut. I actually see science as progressing in a kind of open-ended narrative.
Metaphors are extremely powerful in the ability to convey complicated concepts. Metaphors are the primary language of religion, where religion goes wrong is that the metaphors take the place of truth instead of the intended message within the metaphor. That I agree should be gotten rid of, because it is the heart of the discord that happens when religion interacts with the world.
I don't disagree with using metaphors in science education. In fact I recall hearing a lot of them even in my fairly dodgy and incomplete scientific schooling. Constructing useful narratives (especially the true kind, but honest make-believe examples are fair) is perfectly good too, but we already do those things.
I had written more, but it might be operating on a bad premise so I'm going to skip it and ask a question instead. Could you tell me what exactly you mean by "Metaphors are the primary language of religion"? I'm especially interested in the sense of the word primary being employed.
I had written more, but it might be operating on a bad premise so I'm going to skip it and ask a question instead. Could you tell me what exactly you mean by "Metaphors are the primary language of religion"? I'm especially interested in the sense of the word primary being employed.
Religion is itself a metaphor, or a collection of metaphors, that help it's adherents understand the world, or help them both understand and express their experiences within the world.
The earliest religions of hunter-gatherers were focused on the cycle of their lifestyle. It's well established that humans have a deep concern about death, it's meanings and consequences. Humans have long understood that they were killing animals for food and that this death was not unlike the death of their own loved ones.
A great example of this is the Buffalo Dance of the plains Native Americans.
The basic story behind the dance is that after many years of hunting buffalo by driving them over a cliff, one year the buffalo were suddenly turning aside every time they neared the cliff. The yearly hunt was failing and the tribe was faced with almost certain starvation in the coming winter. A young woman was walking past the base of the cliff and lamenting the impending doom of her people, looked up at the buffalo at the top and said "If you would jump down right now so that my people could be fed, I would marry one of you." All of a sudden hundreds of buffalo started jumping off the cliff. Then, one came down the cliff and spoke to her, "You will honor your pledge and be my wife".
The tribe didn't notice immediately, but eventually her father noticed her disappearance. He went out searching for her and was eventually helped by a magpie. She secretly met with her father to plan her escape, but when her buffalo husband found out, the herd trampled him to death. The young woman wailed and cried. Her husband took pity on her "Now you understand how we feel when we see our mothers, fathers and children broken upon the rocks below the cliff. If you can bring him back from the dead, I will release you from our marriage and you both can return to your tribe."
The woman couldn't find any piece of her father's body, so she asked the magpie for help. The magpie pecked and dug around in the dirt until it found a piece of his backbone. She put the backbone on the ground and covered it with her robe and began to sing and dance. When she lifted the robe she saw her father's body restored, but still lifeless. She covered it again and continued to sing. This time when she lifted the robe he was breathing.
"Strange things we have seen today, a man who was trampled into nothing in the dirt has been made whole, your peoples power is strong. Before you go, we will teach you our dance. You will use your power to restore our herd that you kill for food, just as the man who killed the buffalo has been restored." With that, the buffalo sang and danced their solemn dance and the man and woman were told to teach it their people.
The story is a metaphor for the relationship between the plains tribes and the buffalo. The tribes relied on the buffalo to survive and so to honor the death of these important creatures is an important lesson for the tribe to remember. The value isn't in the factual "truth" of the metaphor, but rather in the lesson that the metaphor teaches.
One of the primary failings of Christianity is that some of the metaphors and teachings are outdated. Most are at least 2,000 years old, some rather older. Some can still be used to illustrate good behavior, but most are so diluted through numerous translations and their original context lost that their value has diminished. The serious trouble comes when people take the metaphors as facts, instead of metaphors with potential messages.
The buffalo dance itself is also outdated. A message about conservation can still be gleaned, but in our modern era our lives don't hold the context that gives it the power that it had 400 years ago.
To add some more specifics, the Bible is full of references to:
eating
drinking
bread
water
nakedness
and plenty more
These are all metaphors. Heck, even the act of communion is a metaphor, but it's also a metaphor layered on top of another metaphor. You eat the bread which is a metaphor for the body of christ, which is a metaphor for his teachings. To eat the bread is to believe in him and his teachings. To swallow his story, hook, line and sinker, as it were.
When he feeds the masses with a couple loaves and a few fishes, it's again a metaphor on multiple layers. First off, there's the metaphor for how generosity enriches an entire community. Most communities as a whole can provide for themselves, but individuals might not necessarily, so if those who have excess give to those who don't, the community as a whole is sustained. In addition, there's the metaphor that's basically the same as the communion metaphor above, the bread is his teaching and a single loaf can be shared amongst all.
The passage about walking on water isn't about how cool Jesus is because he can do it, it's about how faith and community can sustain a person through hardship.
Again, the primary problem with religion isn't the metaphors, it's that the adherents begin to see the metaphors as more important than the message contained within.
Beckett,
The washing of hands is only taken as fact because someone tested whether it reduced disease in hospital. After much scorn, he showed that it did. People then changed their minds based on the new evidence. So, once again, your mendacious attempts to portray science as dogmatic fail.
Actually, no. His name was Semmelweis, and he decided to figure out if anything could be done about the atrocious number of mothers dying from infections after giving birth in a hospital. He set up a few theories, including things like a miasma, and invisible contaminants. He tested these as well as he could think of, and the evidence was clear. To test miasma, he let the women give birth in a new location, which did not help. However, the evidence made clear that doctors assisting births after performing autopsies was the problem. He enforced washing hands... And was promptly ridiculed by his colleagues. Eventually, he died in an asylum. It is an interesting story, and reading that and the stories of Loewenhoek and Koch gives a pretty good image of how we became aware of the principles of infection.
My point is that science often acts just as badly as it claims religion to do. Newton is a prime example of this, but there are many others. It seems that as soon as someone gains enough influence in academia, the temptation to grow a personal cult and disregard the scientific method becomes pretty strong. However... That is scientists acting according to the principles of dogmatism and religion, i.e. People who can't live up to the demands of scientific rigour.
dogma.
£10 says that we have to use that clip with regards to 'theory', if that discussion continues ;)
Is atheism a religion?
Religion;
5. Something of overwhelming importance to a person.
It is to some people.
My point is that science often acts just as badly as it claims religion to do. Newton is a prime example of this, but there are many others. It seems that as soon as someone gains enough influence in academia, the temptation to grow a personal cult and disregard the scientific method becomes pretty strong. However... That is scientists acting according to the principles of dogmatism and religion, i.e. People who can't live up to the demands of scientific rigour.
"Science" makes no claims whatsoever about the behavior of religion. "Science" has no uniform set of beliefs.
I've mentioned before that we say "science" as a shorthand for "the scientific process"; usually that's fine. Hell, I do it all the time, but it does lead to ascribing values to "science" that just aren't applicable. Individual scientists may well make claims about religion, but if you really want to find people claiming that religion acts badly, check out the historians.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Just curious, what are the top 5? I'm guessing Islam, Christianity, Hinduism (actually many religions), Buddhism, and some sort of mix between Atheism\Agnosticism\"check here if you don't know what these words mean", but different studies all claim different things.
In terms of # of self-professed adherents worldwide:
#1 Christianity
#2 Islam
#3 Hinduism
#4 Buddhism
While Judaism isn't in the top 5 in #s of adherents, it's generally considered to be one of the 5 major religions due to its historical influence.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.
Commentary? Really?
And even then the best you can come up with in your false equivalency is "they paid teenagers to dress up like Jesus on fictional character day."
Honestly? I mean because that's totally the same as cheering for the deaths of soldiers and saying that God is going to destroy the USA because we let people that are different exist. I mean really this is just as bad as holding up signs that says, "God hates F&%%!" Or bombing abortion clinics, or murdering doctors, or burning people of different religious beliefs at the stake...
And by exactly the same I mean completely and totally different of course.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.
That's hardly the same thing.
And facts aren't the same as dogma. Getting a court order is not an "Attack". They're different words for different reasons.
There really is no argument for atheism being a religion. All you can try to do is shift the meta-argument to ridiculous degrees, to the point that ANYTHING is a religion.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.
What is interesting is the contortions people perform to avoid questioning their worldview.
|
|
Just curious, what are the top 5? I'm guessing Islam, Christianity, Hinduism (actually many religions), Buddhism, and some sort of mix between Atheism\Agnosticism\"check here if you don't know what these words mean", but different studies all claim different things.In terms of # of self-professed adherents worldwide:
#1 Christianity
#2 Islam
#3 Hinduism
#4 BuddhismWhile Judaism isn't in the top 5 in #s of adherents, it's generally considered to be one of the 5 major religions due to its historical influence.
Essentually as I guess, are these in order of number of self-identifying adherants as well?
I had written more, but it might be operating on a bad premise so I'm going to skip it and ask a question instead. Could you tell me what exactly you mean by "Metaphors are the primary language of religion"? I'm especially interested in the sense of the word primary being employed.Religion is itself a metaphor, or a collection of metaphors, that help it's adherents understand the world, or help them both understand and express their experiences within the world.
Ok. I've read both posts and to be completely honest I'm seeing almost zero metaphorical content here. This makes it very hard to credit the notion that religion is all about metaphors. I will certainly grant that the chief purpose of religion down through history has been explaining the universe, but that just makes religions collections of failed scientific theories. That would make it secondary, not primary.
It seems extremely selective to say that Jesus walking on water is just a story about the power of faith when it's pretty obvious that the authors (and their followers today) actually believed the dude did it. Rather then the metaphor is at best second fiddle to the science.
I mean we can say the story about the boy who cried wolf is a metaphor, but only because no one actually believes it represents real events except maybe children too young to tell the difference. But religion's tales are the exact opposite. So the map of religion as all metaphor isn't matching the territory very well.