Even when we as individuals do things considered to be irrational, we are forced to do them within the confines of rationality. One may be psychotic and go on a rampage with a gun, but one must also know how to work a gun for it to be a "useful", albeit destructive, tool. Reason, and the levels of Conscious Reason humanity has reached, is the one thing that truly separates us from the other beings on this planet. It is this aspect of the human mind that labels us as "sentient beings".
Don't forget that there are different cultures and ethnic groups on this planet. Religion itself could be thought of as synonymous with "culture" and "ethnic group" in its development of a group mentality and group identity. "Rationality" is subjective. There is no objective reasoning whenever it involves humans and sentient beings, because humans don't all think the same way. They don't all, or always agree. They may find ways to agree and work together, but that doesn't mean they have achieved objectivity. They have simply reached agreement despite their differences.
Science as a system of theories doesn't involve humans and sentience, which is why it is able to be objective. But science is inhuman, and if you base your reasoning and way of thinking solely on science, you would be doing something dehumanising.
Religious people and theists often attack science and discredit it by asserting that it can't solve all problems in this world. I am fine with the limitations that science has in solving the world's problems, but the real problem is that they are trying to supersede science with their own ideology. They are right that science has limitations, but wrong in trying to supersede science with their own ideology as if it solves problems not already solved by science.
My recommendation is this: if there is a problem to solve, use whatever works best, but don't try and shoehorn something that doesn't work best when there is already something better.
I am not saying science doesn't have its place in romance, particularly in sex. With the development of Viagra and other sexual enhancement medications, people have been able to improve their experiences of a "love life" in the bedroom, possibly with longer-lasting and harder erections.
Yes, there would probably be religious attitudes with regards to sexual hygiene and contraceptives would be a way to have intercourse with the reduced risk of acquiring sexual diseases.
But even after science has solved all physiological health problems, I don't think that dispels the need for people to "use their feelings" in relationships. Relationships are driven by feelings after all. Science can't tell you all about what a man or woman wants. Relationships need work and not every man or woman is the same. There are ways to make relationships work. There have been lots of books written about it.
But that isn't science. Just because you have a theory about how something works, doesn't mean it should be called "science."
Humans may have instincts at the lower level that allow them to be modeled by "science" and to have theories to describe such phenomena, but at the higher levels of human thinking and behaviour, you can't be objective. Human beings are too fickle at the higher level. They don't always respond the same way to the same stimulus.
You can't attach the label "science" to everything when you have a theory that makes it work, because then "science" would become just another cheap brand name. If science is objective, and you attach the label "science" to something you can't really be objective about, what you really have is "pseudo-science," or "philosophy."
Psychology, for example, isn't really a "science." It's a pseudo-science. It's a philosophy about the way humans think, and nobody can be objective about that.
Psychiatry, however, involves the biochemistry of the human brain and hormones. You can be objective about the existence of certain chemicals, and what they do, but it's not concrete in the sense that some human individuals may respond differently to the same drugs.
Further, I think you’re making a break from “reasoning” with the more “feelings” based tenets of Religion and superstition. Feelings are the least reliable way to make a solid decision. I would hope that you do not make decisions that affect you or your family based upon “feelings” but with comparative analysis, risk/reward and probable outcome. If something feels good, investigate it objectively. See if the good feelings are substantiated. You function with your critical faculties on an ongoing basis, and while you can misinterpret some sensory input, rationality adheres to parameters that are testable.
Feelings are the way to go in relationships and human/social relations. Neglect a person's feelings and you may cause them to feel offended, under-appreciated or even oppressed and persecuted. Finding ways to do business without hurting or offending someone requires reasoning, but it isn't logical, mathematical, deterministic or technical reasoning, but emotional reasoning. You can't solve problems in relationships using logic, mathematics or science. The way to solve these problems is to remember that you are human and that you feel.
Feelings define who we are as individuals, whether it is fitting in with society, finding a job, choosing a career, choosing a mate/partner/spouse or spending time with the kids.
To feel is to be human.
You wouldn't tell your wife/husband or girlfriend/boyfriend that you want to do something your way in a relationship (I'm not talking about practical problems, but relationship problems) because according to the "logic," doing it that way is better, would you? If you did, there is a good chance you'd have a divorce filed in 24 hours!
I never claimed what you are attributing to me.
Why would you think that?
I do know that depending upon your particular religious ideology; you do predefine a number of conclusions. This is borne out by the "conclusive" nature of religionists that there religion is correct and others’, not. As long as the individual's "objectivity" remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that a faith in a god goes unquestioned), one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is secondary to this paradigm because the nature of faith nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of theistic belief but one endemic to all of them.
I don’t think it is. I’ve heard that “god’s majesty of the universe” is revealed by the Hubble telescope. Huh?
My interest here would be whether you put all religious people in that category. If I misunderstood you, thank you for clarifying yourself.
Wait a minute. There are seven pages of posts in this thread. My arrival did not occur until page 5. Prior to that, there were other posts that included discussion of science. If you’re troubled by my comments, then, fine, refute my Atheism.
I suppose yes, the original poster made the discussion one about science, but a thread doesn't have to be defined by the original poster, although we should try and address his/her concerns.
I'm not here to refute atheism. I said so in my initial post here. I don't see much value in such a pursuit at this stage in my life (and maybe never).
Theists and religious people having faith doesn't mean they have no place for science in their lives. Everything has a time and place. People seem to promote "science" and "faith" as if they have to occupy
everything in their lives.
I think the most important thing to recognise when discussing science and faith is that we are human and that we are to use science and faith in whatever ways would benefit humans most. It should not be a question of "science vs. faith" but how does science and faith benefit humans and the human psyche?
By what authority do you find yourself as the begin and end all for describing gods various attributes? Your description of the gods attributes seem to clash with the notion of an infinitely just and infinitely merciful god.
I never claimed that this notion of God was an objective one, so I assert no authority at all except to say how I see things personally. When a person has views or beliefs and chooses to express them, it doesn't mean they want to impose it on the whole world or on wider society. They just want to talk about it.
I'd also like to point out that I was talking about the Abrahamic God, not an objective God. Because I was only talking about the Abrahamic God, I don't see how my concept clashes with an
"infinitely just and infinitely merciful god." It would only clash with such a concept if I was speaking of an infinitely objective God, but I spoke of the Abrahamic God as a tribal God.
My "opinion" is not an opinion at all-- it is based exclusively on the listed ethics in the bible.
The literature is always open to interpretation. The notion of the absolute/objective God has been relentlessly promoted by fundamentalist Christians but it isn't necessarily the "truth" (which is open to debate) about the Abrahamic God depicted (yes, it's a depiction) in the literature of the Tanakh/Old Testament.
I believe that the ethics of the Abrahamic God should only be liable to the amount of criticism given to it if people actually promote that God as an absolute/objective God.
I think it is an opinion because I believe that the
Abrahamic God depicted in the literature doesn't necessarily consider himself objective or absolute. It's just that people have spent so long thinking of him that way. It has become a time-honoured habit.
I wouldn't set up a test for my children that was impossible for them to pass, purposely tempt them, and when they did fail it I wouldn't curse my children, and their children, and their children and their children and...
Once again, it's a question of how the Abrahamic God has been depicted and promoted. One important facet I think would dispel this notion of an Abrahamic "God who tests" is that he never asserted himself without first trying to form a relationship with people. He was entitled to his dealings with Israel because he rescued their ancestors from slavery in Egypt. That started a relationship and whatever anger and displeasure he expressed was a part of that relationship.
It would be a different matter if this Abrahamic God stomped into our lives unwelcome and uninvited and demanded that we worship him and "pass a test" because in that case he wouldn't be the "rescuing parent" to whom we would owe devotion and respect. Those who aren't part of such a relationship have no such obligation to fulfill. You owe a person nothing when they have done you no favours, so in the case of an Abrahamic God, if he was never done anything for you, you are free to live however you like. They are outside the box, so to speak.
Of course, I am sure you'd say that this Abrahamic God is just a "fanciful notion" that one invents to feel "rescued." That's fine with me. I am only interested here in discussing the concept of this Abrahamic God, whether he is an objective/absolute or a subjective/nihilistic tribal God and how that God was depicted and described in the literature. I won't dispute or debate with you his existence or whether he's a fantasy.
I wouldn't create a Satan and allow him any power over my children.
I wouldn't create a hell and condemn my children to it forever, even if they did call me names and spit on me and hurt me or didn't acknowledge me.
Well, that's the notion of the Abrahamic God you get from being exposed to fundamentalist Christianity.
The word "hell" in the New Testament is a combination of
sheol and some other Greek word like
gehenna (I hope I've spelt that right), which isn't a lake of fire as people often think, but something more like an earthly dystopia in the here and now.
