True
I once heard that point for point a set of 20 therapists were given in a non-biased form the beliefs and faiths of a christian dressed up to be non-religeos (basically replacing the word god with another) and they were asked for a prognosis of the patient.
most of them said a combinaation of paranoia, delusion, schitzophrenia and denial.
Rationally speaking, there is actually some good things about religion. Religious people are generally more calm and have a more positive outlook on life.
Could be the 'denial' thing, or just plain stupidity. However, an hour in church provides some very nice mental relaxation for me... No worries, don't need to think much. No obligations but to stand up and sit down when everyone else does. It really does give some peace of mind.
And then of course there's the gospel choir. Although it is purely christian music, there are definitely other reasons for singing it. Apart from all the lovely people in the choir, I'm always in a fantastic mood - no matter how shitty the day has been :o)
Rationally speaking, there is actually some good things about religion. Religious people are generally more calm and have a more positive outlook on life.
Could be the 'denial' thing, or just plain stupidity. However, an hour in church provides some very nice mental relaxation for me... No worries, don't need to think much. No obligations but to stand up and sit down when everyone else does. It really does give some peace of mind.
And then of course there's the gospel choir. Although it is purely christian music, there are definitely other reasons for singing it. Apart from all the lovely people in the choir, I'm always in a fantastic mood - no matter how shitty the day has been :o)
I don't think religeous people are more calm or more positive. Less enlightened perhaps so have less to think about. A recent scientific study showed that statistically, religeous people or those with paranormal beliefs or beliefs in conspiracy theories etc, are actually more likely to cause a car accident or injur themselves or other people through inaction or accidents. Psychologists put this down after studying each case to be a lack of control of their life - generally, there is less control because they are anxious about the afterlife etc, whereas a non-believer has nothing to worry about and lives life to the full, knowing it is precious - it is the only one we have and it is so beautiful - the belief in a god is a detraction from that sentiment, because he's just going to give you another one later, but only if you do everything as he says in this one.
I don't think religeous people are more calm or more positive. Less enlightened perhaps so have less to think about. A recent scientific study showed that statistically, religeous people or those with paranormal beliefs or beliefs in conspiracy theories etc, are actually more likely to cause a car accident or injur themselves or other people through inaction or accidents. Psychologists put this down after studying each case to be a lack of control of their life - generally, there is less control because they are anxious about the afterlife etc, whereas a non-believer has nothing to worry about and lives life to the full, knowing it is precious - it is the only one we have and it is so beautiful - the belief in a god is a detraction from that sentiment, because he's just going to give you another one later, but only if you do everything as he says in this one.
Eeerrrr... so my peace of mind is a result of me being less enlightened then?
I don't think we're ever really going to agree on this. I get the point of all of your arguments. I even agree with most of them. However, it all comes back to this feeling that I can't explain. No matter how irrational, non-empirical, paranoid, schizophrenic, denying and impossible to prove it is.
And I believe that trying to find scientific arguments to validate my position on a "faith in religion scale" is a terrible mistake. My faith in positive science is pretty low.
As a social scientist, I believe that you can never take scientific knowledge as a fact that's 100% certain. The social, cultural, economic, political, psycological context of the scientist always interferes in his observations or discoveries. Science is not the absolute true.
So, even if someone could say that it's been scientifically proved that God doesn't exist and that has scientific proof of it, it would be almost as reliable as someone who strongly believes in God saying that he is absolutely certain that God exists because he feels the connection to him.
Science and religion: both are matters of belief and faith.
And also, as a social scientist, I think religions can be good for societies, because they strengthen social bondings, and integrate groups of people.
I think it's too pedantic to say that religious people are "less enlightened", just because they don't share your world-view.
And if all of this doesn't make sense, blame it on my English, as I always say :oP
And I believe that trying to find scientific arguments to validate my position on a "faith in religion scale" is a terrible mistake. My faith in positive science is pretty low.
It seems clear you don't have a great impression of what science actually is. Its not scientific arguments to validate a position, its the simple case that you say later on, nothing can be 100% from a philosophical point of view, so you can't in your own admission be at 7. You would literally have to prove to everyone that god doesn't exist. (which is significantly more difficult than proving he does)
Quote:
As a social scientist, I believe that you can never take scientific knowledge as a fact that's 100% certain.
exactly
Quote:
The social, cultural, economic, political, psycological context of the scientist always interferes in his observations or discoveries.
By design, science is IMMUNE to those effects. A scienTIST may be dishonest, but SCIENCE is ALWAYS honest, because it must be within all designated constants and variables, be repeatable, observable and thus be confirmable by peers. It can be tried and tested over and over by an unlimited number of different testers, whilst still facing the test of unlimited time.
Quote:
So, even if someone could say that it's been scientifically proved that God doesn't exist and that has scientific proof of it, it would be almost as reliable as someone who strongly believes in God saying that he is absolutely certain that God exists because he feels the connection to him.
You cannot possibly think that these two are equal. Right - do you understand that the ex-planet pluto orbits the sun? Because science has proven, given all the evidence and calculations of gravitational potential and momentum and kepler's laws etc that it WILL go around the sun in a standard elliptical orbit lasting 248 earth years. However, this planet was discovered less than 80 years ago, so we have NEVER observed a full orbit, and no one person ever will. So: The problem is this. I really feel, deep down in my gut because of feelings I cannot explain, that pluto will pass through the sun in 2 years, come out again, head on a path to alpha centauri, orbit that star, come back and orbit the earth as a new moon, fall into the orbit of mars 'by mistake' then get back to where we saw it to begin with.
So basically, it doesn't matter what science said, because I've just said what my feelings are. (this was sarcasm by the way)
No scientist EVER goes by his feelings - his own beleifs are not able to interfere in the experiment, otherwise it is not an experiment. He may or may not be happy with the result, but the result is there due to perfect impartial unbiased testing.
Quote:
Science and religion: both are matters of belief and faith.
Science is based solely upon the actual findings throughout rigorous experimentation. Newton for example didn't just decide the LAW that 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. He didn't just tell his wife thats what the family has to beleive in and write a book with no evidence and just state it as fact. He went on to scientifically and experimentally prove it, and whats more, it has been peer reviewed for 341 years again and again and again. Further, I can't just say, 'I don't believe in this law, I don't have any faith in it', without giving actual reasons why. I would have to disprove this SCIENTIFIC LAW beyond all doubt to be taken seriously.
Quote:
And also, as a social scientist, I think religions can be good for societies, because they strengthen social bondings, and integrate groups of people.
How can anything that promotes delusion be positive? Regardless of its individual effects? What if it turns out we are all actually 'in the Matrix' and the government knows about it, and we're wasting our lives believeing in something that is fake, whilst we have real lives to be getting on with.
I don't need to make a list about the atrocities and terrors of religeon over the centuries, but I'll give you literally the tip of the ice-berg. Stop me if you don't understand what I'm getting at. At least 10 CRUSADES, children crusade, spanish inquisition, twin towers, london bombings, iraq war, al-qaeda, witch-huntings, supression of scientists and free will, AIDS in africa due to heresy of condoms, etc
Quote:
I think it's too pedantic to say that religious people are "less enlightened", just because they don't share your world-view.
I don't know what you're getting at by the word pedantic, but statistically speaking, those who have not gained further or higher or even basic education are found to be more religeous and have a far lesser understanding of even basic scientific principals such as gravity, gaining energy through food, power supply, etc. This is a generality.
Quote:
And if all of this doesn't make sense, blame it on my English, as I always say :oP
I have to say, I hope to goodness that your english is awful. I hope you have no idea what you were saying in the whole of the above, and I think most scientists and even non-scientists and even religeous people would agree with you, a self-claimed scientist (of sorts - social) would agree. I hope you meant to say the opposite of everything you have said and accidentally missed out the negatives in the sentence structure.
I base that score on hope rather than belief. There are some people (one in particular, my mother) who are dear to me, they believe in God and they attend church every week and they live their lives in the way that the Catholic Church champions, kindness to others, and all the rest of it. I hope that her belief and faith is confirmed by it being reality.
From my own personal perspective, looking at it entirely selfishly, I couldn't care less whether there is one or not, if there is then he or she stopped listening to me a long time ago and I don't blame him or her.
thats more or less the point. Scientifically, you shouldn't be able to be number 1 or number 7.
I mean saying you're number 1 you're literally saying you are aware and certain that god exists - A neutral person that has never heard of god would have to say "how do you know, what is the evidence?" the same if you are 7, you can't say "I know as fact he does not exist - to 100%", the neutral alien would again say what is your evidence for that.
You can't be sure of anything to 100%, but thats more a philosophical debate like how do you know pluto is there if you've never been etc, or how do you know all frogs in the world have bones. Whereas this is the proof or disproof of somthing that is born of utter fantasy like unicorns, which are no more or less provable than god. We all know they don't exist, but from a scientific point of view there is 99.999999 chance they don't and never have existed. There is a chance that god exists, its just proven to be very small so far, but not impossible.
I don't think it's possible in this day and age to be a 7, there is simply no way to know, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no God.
You can strongly believe that there is no God, but there is just no way to be 'sure'.
However, it all depends on how you define sure.
thefreedictionary.com suggests that 'sure' can mean :-
1. Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.
2. Not hesitating or wavering; firm: sure convictions.
3. Confident, as of something awaited or expected: sure of ultimate victory.
4.
a. Bound to come about or happen; inevitable: sure defeat.
b. Having one's course directed; destined or bound: sure to succeed.
5. Certain not to miss or err; steady: a sure hand on the throttle.
6.
a. Worthy of being trusted or depended on; reliable.
b. Free from or marked by freedom from doubt: sure of her friends.
7. Careful to do something: asked me to be sure to turn off the stove.
8. Obsolete Free from harm or danger; safe.
Definitions number 1-3 suggest different things, so we have to also take into account what is meant by the term 'sure', before people jump into a 7.
