Religion's responsibility.

Originally posted by OdBod
You don't see a connection between mental health problems and emotions? With reference to your last point, I apologize if I have assumed too much, I thought it was a certainty that you could not bring doubt into your belief.

mental health problems are varied and complex. The common perception is that they are a consequence of the electrochemical impulses in the mind 'misfiring', producing a range of 'states', from the very severe (aural or visual hallucinations) to melancholy, depresiion etc. Now if you are experiencing auditory or visionary hallucinations, its likely to effect your emotional state, don't you think? Although there has been a vast improvement in medicine, not all medicine works and much of it cannot even arrest the symptoms. Sometimes a so called 'soft approach', counselling works better.

There are many recorded instances in scripture where Gods servants have doubted. 😀

Originally posted by DeepThought
The way you've written your OP it is independent of whether God exists or not. I'm wondering if that God does not exist is an implicit assumption in what you've written. After all if God does exist, and suppose for the sake of discussion the Christians are broadly correct, then being a Christian is clearly the right move. So is what you are criticisin ...[text shortened]... d Hinduism as invalid, for different reasons. So does what you're are saying apply to Hinduism?

It is only rational to believe in things for which we have sufficient evidence and reason to justify
such belief.

We do not have sufficient evidence to believe in any gods, and that is why religions require and
promote faith, which is irrational.
If there were sufficient evidence faith would not be required.

Given that, it doesn't matter whether a god or gods actually exist [for the purposes of the op]
because faith is still irrational and dangerous.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
The strange think to me is that the people who make this argument are willing to apply it to religion, but not to love, æsthetic taste, or any of the other things that aren't explicable by science but still exist. If they are so willing to do away with faith because it's "counter-intellectual", they should also be eager to forbid all marriages except th ...[text shortened]... arranged by statistics. Yet for some reason they never are. Maybe their wives won't let them 😛

huh?

First, who says any of those things are not explicable or understandable to science?

It's certainly not me, because all of them are.

And being rational does not in any way mean not having or being emotional.
That is the "Straw Vulcan" fallacy of assuming that being rational means
being like Spock, who was decidedly irrational.

Learn the position of those you disagree with before trying to mock it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is only rational to believe in things for which we have sufficient evidence and reason to justify
such belief.

We do not have sufficient evidence to believe in any gods, and that is why religions require and
promote faith, which is irrational.
If there were sufficient evidence faith would not be required.

Given that, it doesn't matter wheth ...[text shortened]... s actually exist [for the purposes of the op]
because faith is still irrational and dangerous.

and yet Newton wrote more words on his search for religious truth than on his scientific research. Was that irrational and dangerous!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet Newton wrote more words on his search for religious truth than on his scientific research. Was that irrational and dangerous!

Yes.

While Newton was probably the father of modern science, he was also the last
of the mystics [in terms of big figures in science].

He would probably have made a lot more progress if he hadn't have wasted so
much time on such nonsense.


Similarly Kepler, who worked out the orbits of the planets [prior to Newton explaining
why the planets did this]. He hit upon the right idea almost immediately but discorded
it because it didn't match his religious beliefs. And then he spent 5 years trying to
prove that the planets orbits worked as circles, before finally coming back to the
idea that they were ellipses. How much more could he have accomplished if his
religion didn't get in the way...


BTW I can do this all day, yes many scientists in history were also religious, almost
everyone was back then, because you could be executed for not being religious if
you were caught [or accused] blaspheming or being an atheist...
But I can show many examples of those scientists being held back by their faith.
And science as a whole being held back by the religious.

These people did what they did despite of religion and not because of it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes.

While Newton was probably the father of modern science, he was also the last
of the mystics [in terms of big figures in science].

He would probably have made a lot more progress if he hadn't have wasted so
much time on such nonsense.


Similarly Kepler, who worked out the orbits of the planets [prior to Newton explaining
why the plane ...[text shortened]... k by the religious.

These people did what they did despite of religion and not because of it.

Balderdash! he would have probably been a lame mathematician if he was not motivated by his religious faith to make an examination of the physical world and discover the secrets of the universe infused therein by the father of the celestial lights! You know it, I know it, the very stones are crying it out. Its a bitter pill for you to swallow fuggleyfudge, the father of modern science was a great theist! and motivated to make scientific discovery because of his faith.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Balderdash! he would have probably been a lame mathematician if he was not motivated by his religious faith to make an examination of the physical world and discover the secrets of the father of the celestial lights! You know it, I know it, the very stones are crying it out. Its a bitter pill for you to swallow fuggleyfudge, the father of modern science was a great theist!

I do not know that, and neither do you.

The majority of scientists and mathematicians today are not motivated by
religious faith, disproving the idea that it is necessary, and while it's indeed
possible that some people were motivated by their faith*, there is no reason
to suppose that if they had no faith, they wouldn't have been motivated by
anything else.

And I am aware that Newton was a theist, the way you know that is I said so.
It's one of the many things Newton was wrong about.

Nobody is flawless, and being a theist was one of his flaws. I have no trouble at
all admitting that, because it's not an admission. It contradicts nothing I believe,
it in fact supports my beliefs.

Now do try to remember how to spell my name, you wouldn't want to break the
forum rules now would you.


*or claimed to be, few people accurately know why they are motivated to do
what they do. Most justifications for our actions can be shown to be post hoc
rationalisations of why we make the choices we make.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I do not know that, and neither do you.

The majority of scientists and mathematicians today are not motivated by
religious faith, disproving the idea that it is necessary, and while it's indeed
possible that some people were motivated by their faith*, there is no reason
to suppose that if they had no faith, they wouldn't have been motivated by ...[text shortened]... r our actions can be shown to be post hoc
rationalisations of why we make the choices we make.

We are not talking of any ordinary run of the mill throw a stone and you'll hit one on the head type scientists, we are talking of the Father of Modern science, Sir Isaac himself. (peace be upon him) I was reading an account only recently of a microbiologist who was motivated by their faith to learn and unravel the mysteries of the universe. Perhaps i will produce it for your edification?

The King of Science - Sir Isaac Newton - theist
The King of Chess - Robert James Fischer - theist

name any other field of virtue and the the King will undoubtedly be a theist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We are not talking of any ordinary run of the mill throw a stone and you'll hit one on the head type scientists, we are talking of the Father of Modern science, Sir Isaac himself. (peace be upon him) I was reading an account only recently of a microbiologist who was motivated by their faith to learn and unravel the mysteries of the universe. Perhaps ...[text shortened]... ischer - theist

name any other field of virtue and the the King will undoubtedly be a theist.

I can give a rather large list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists, I don't think that there is a correlation between theism and scientific output. Also Newton insisted on an absolute space, because it fitted his religious preconceptions, which did hold us back. It took 250 years to correct for that.

With regard to science, the Church insisting that their cosmology could not be questioned held human progress back for centuries. Some evangelical groups in the U.S. and increasingly Britain are trying to introduce creationism to schools. Od Bod in a reply to me has stated that he is referring to the tendency of religion to insist on unquestioning adherence to its precepts. In that, with some caveats about how the religion works, I think he is right, there is a problem. Blind faith requires blindness.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is only rational to believe in things for which we have sufficient evidence and reason to justify
such belief.

We do not have sufficient evidence to believe in any gods, and that is why religions require and
promote faith, which is irrational.
If there were sufficient evidence faith would not be required.

Given that, it doesn't matter wheth ...[text shortened]... s actually exist [for the purposes of the op]
because faith is still irrational and dangerous.

Are you insisting on empirical evidence? Or would a watertight argument suffice, some sort of ontological argument which doesn't beg the question [1]? That some people with schizophrenia think God or the Devil is talking to them doesn't entail that it is the religion that induced this. They'd still be hearing the voices even if religion had been forgotten. So I think it would be difficult to prove any direct correlation. Also the vast majority of Christians, and those of other faiths, take a moderate position within their religions. Extreme religiosity may well be an indicator of insanity, but the key word is extreme. Without religion they'd find something else to be extreme about.

There's also a problem with the statement that it is only rational to believe in things we have [empirical] evidence for. Since you need empirical evidence for that statement. You could take Popper's approach, but then it is only rational to rule out things we have sufficient evidence to rule out and that spoils your argument.

[1] Ontological proofs are always along the lines of we can imagine God, God is perfect, perfection entails necessary existence. Because we can imagine God there are possible worlds with God in, so far so good. But the step from perfect to realised in all possible worlds is highly suspect. I can imagine a perfect circle. I defy anyone to find a perfect circle in nature (including event horizons of black holes and other exotic things). They include a predicate of real existence in perfection and so beg the question.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I can give a rather large list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists, I don't think that there is a correlation between theism and scientific output. Also Newton insisted on an absolute space, because it fitted his religious preconceptions, which did hold us back. It took 250 years to correct for that.

With regard to science, the Churc ...[text shortened]... ow the religion works, I think he is right, there is a problem. Blind faith requires blindness.

"Blind faith requires blindness."

No such thing as blind faith. Faith isn't blind.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I can give a rather large list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists, I don't think that there is a correlation between theism and scientific output. Also Newton insisted on an absolute space, because it fitted his religious preconceptions, which did hold us back. It took 250 years to correct for that.

With regard to science, the Churc ...[text shortened]... ow the religion works, I think he is right, there is a problem. Blind faith requires blindness.

how many of these atheists were motivated by their atheism to unravel the mysteries of the universe? Ill wager not a single one, this is not true of the scientific theist who upon willing to learn about God is motivated in his scientific endeavour and it becomes a matter of wonderment to him as he or she unravels theses mysteries and perceives in them the very hand of God!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how many of these atheists were motivated by their atheism to unravel the mysteries of the universe? Ill wager not a single one, this is not true of the scientific theist who upon willing to learn about God is motivated in his scientific endeavour and it becomes a matter of wonderment to him as he or she unravels theses mysteries and perceives in them the very hand of God!

Some undoubtably, you're underestimating the motivating power of rationalism. In this forum googlefudge puts a considerable effort into his attempts to demonstrate that religion is at best pointless and at worst harmful. Whether he's right or not is another matter, but rationalism has inspired him to do this. I see no good reason why it should not inspire people to study science.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Some undoubtably, you're underestimating the motivating power of rationalism. In this forum googlefudge puts a considerable effort into his attempts to demonstrate that religion is at best pointless and at worst harmful. Whether he's right or not is another matter, but rationalism has inspired him to do this. I see no good reason why it should not inspire people to study science.

But its not a motivating force the same as religious belief and atheism is not the same thing as rationalism, is it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Are you insisting on empirical evidence? Or would a watertight argument suffice, some sort of ontological argument which doesn't beg the question [1]? That some people with schizophrenia think God or the Devil is talking to them doesn't entail that it is the religion that induced this. They'd still be hearing the voices even if religion had been forgo ...[text shortened]... otic things). They include a predicate of real existence in perfection and so beg the question.

Popper's a subset and special case of Bayesian reasoning.

There's also a problem with the statement that it is only rational to believe in things we have [empirical] evidence for. Since you need empirical evidence for that statement.

Don't be daft. The statement is not a thing.

While evidence can very readily be supplied to empirically verify that being irrational
leads to worse outcomes than being rational, the statement can be justified purely
on logical and mathematical grounds without any evidence.

However belief in an actual thing, requires sufficient evidence for that thing.