Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Jester]

I'm seeing here the primacy of the dogma of science and empiricism over any sense of the importance of rationalism in forwarding philosophy.

This is precisely wrong. Science and empiricism are specifically constructed to be anti-dogmatic. Now, any given theory can become dogma, but the whole point of the scientific method, and of empirical focus, is to look most carefully at as much of reality as can be observed, and test each and every idea against the evidence, over and over again, never being fully satisfied by the existing answers.

You tend to focus on all the negative aspects of monasticism, and religious scholarship, but deny the scholarly discipline and drive that preserved and cherished knowledge and propelled Europe into it's golden ages.

Europe's golden ages, at every turn, from the rennaisance to the scientific revolution to enlightenment to the modern scientific world, were about a rejection of monasticism and religious scholarship, and a refocusing on the observable world. Every step forward has meant moving god, spirits, mystical forces and such out of the picture. No step forward has ever been made by inserting them back in. The cherished aspects of monasticism and religious scholarship are nowhere practiced as vehemently as in the Islamic world, and it was exactly those forces that killed, rather than allowed, the Islamic advances in science, medicine, and technology. Once dogma had been given pride of place, it crushed everything else.

But, neither is it the malevolent force, or primitive mysticism you seem to portray it as either.

It's a fairy tale. It ranges from a harmless belief in the unobservable all the way to the fanatical rejection of everything but the perscribed dogma. It might not always be malevolent, but, at least from a scientific perspective, it sure hasn't helped.

What is important is the ability to discern the gems from the dross, rather than blindly follow the same path, even though it may be well worn.

Fine and good. This is the opposite of medieval monasticism, which was all about producing dross from prior dross, and the rejection (often accompanied by flaming torches and stakes) of things which strayed beyond the bounds of the accepted faith.

As a life philosophy, emulating the positive character traits of that person known as Jesus is not too bad a place to begin. To me, that is the essence of Christianity. But, I've also been inspired by people like Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. I've had extremely interesting religious discussions with Hindu's, Buddhists, Muslims, and the many sects of Christianity. All these things, including science, help shape my world view, but I would not hold up or dismiss out of hand one aspect higher or lower than the others. All things are accorded their place in perspective.

I've held plenty of interesting and enlightening conversations with all sorts of people, but that doesn't mean I have any obligation to embrace a relativist or universalist philosophy. People can be interesting and still be wrong.

I think the way to seek that common ground would be that science asks questions related to evidence, and religion needs to respond to rationalize its philosophies to accommodate the reality of that evidence. When the answer is nonsense (as it often seems to be to scientist), then scientists should be patient because the empirical evidence and the truth it reveals will eventually sway the rational mind.

In other words, the god of the gaps. Science advances, god retreats. New discovery? Better "rationalize" our philosophy to accomodate the new evidence. More new evidence? Better toss out the new, revised religion in favour of the new, new revised version. Each iteration is based on no more than the last; the only difference is that the newer ones have to retreat further and further from substantive claims about reality as science displaces dogma.

Feel free to play that game, but I don't really see the point. I'm with the scientists you propose, I'd rather dispense with the whole idea of inventing newer and newer fictions to cover the gaps. It just seems like so much nonsense.

And, believe it or not, most people have rational minds and desire their philosophies to be well ordered. Personally, I think the details (like who, what, when, how) are irrelevant to the greater philosophies of benevolence, love, self sacrifice, morality, and perseverance (motivation/purpose). Was there a biblical flood? I don't care, and that may not be the point of that particular text. People tend to miss the forest by examining and arguing over the trees.

Do you not think people believed in a literal flood at the time the Bible was written? Do you believe that the enlightened writers had a series of elaborate metaphors in mind, and every generation since has simply mistaken them for a factual description of events? This is just the latest adaptation of the god of the gaps: we didn't really mean that thing that you tested and found to be wrong. What we really meant was this other thing, a metaphorical thing that you can't test.

Perhaps the conflict you see now is due to the rapid change in knowledge due to sciences, which has not been reflected in the philosophies and dogma's related to religion.

That's because science has a method for going forward, and religion has a method for going in circles.

I know we disagree as to the need for religion as a social glue altogether, but I still would maintain that it is a fundamental part of was defines the ethical and moral "WE" in our society.

Explain then how the least religious societies in the world also number amongst the least violent, and vice versa. Is that just a historical abberation? Are the Swedes hanging on to their orderly society by some unusual magic? Are the janjaweed in Sudan simply missing the bit in their religion where it's supposed to provide the ethical glue that stops them from indiscriminately killing people?

If, as Marx wrote, "religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers", then I'd say that no one should try to remove their crutches without insuring they can walk without them.

That wasn't Karl Marx. That was Jesse Ventura. Karl Marx said religion was the opium of the masses.
"Let them keep their fairy tales. Don't tell them it isn't real, they might start crying." This is treating people like children. Nobody is forcing irreligion on believers, their crutches are safe if they really want to keep them. The trend towards irreligion seems clear enough to me; let people choose for themselves, and they will slowly drift away from religion as it becomes increasingly anachronistic.

-Jester