US ambassador killed over a film

[eppie]

And eppie, love and beauty are social constructs mate, not biological. Love might appear to have a biological component to it, such as between a mother and child, but even this relationship must be learned, and with the divorce rate in our society being 50%, I would say this is solid evidence that love changes, best friends can become strangers, and therefore, love is ultimately a social construct. Beauty is absolutely, 100% a social construct, for the exact same reasons that race is.

The type of beauty is indeed a social construct. It differs over time, and also geographically. But the fact that people seek for an 'attractive' made is a biological (evolutionary) process.

The fact that love changes does not mean it is only a social thing. It is a socially influenced biological thing.

[kandrathe]

Believing in a god probably happens because of natural (scientific) causes but that doesn't make the existence of a god true.

You say probably...

Things like beauty, love and contentment all have biological reasons.

But, again, you have no proof that these things exist and you suppose they are biological (possibly brain functions). I believe that rationality and logic are the functions of synaptic harmony, while things like creativity, inspiration, and genius are likely more due to synaptic mistakes (disharmony). It is the latter, and our emotions that differentiate us from a hand held calculator.

There are (natural) scientists who believe in god, but almost all of these have been raised in religious families. The percentage of all natural scientists who started believing in god out of their own free will is likely far below 1 %.

You are stating things without any supporting reference. I'd have to see a study documenting these claims. What is the "conversion" rate of the normal population, as opposed to just the "scientists". What do we mean by "conversion"? Who do we include in the "scientists"?

Being raised in a religious family really plays with your brain and no matter how intelligent you are not every person is strong enough to get rid of that. The reason why religion keeps being strong in a always more modern society is the one mentioned above, plus the fact that birth rates are high in many religious countries.

What better way to rebel against your authoritarian, strict, religious upbringing, than to run off, and reject that philosophy your parents hold most dearly. Anthropologically, you'd need to explain why disparate cultures have all gravitated toward embracing spirituality. It seems to be a human thing, not related to a specific idea that spread due to parental dominance and "brain washing".

Religion and science cannot be combined unlike what religious scientists will tell you. There is no real reason imaginable why what is written in bible, quran or any other book should be real.

If you've read them, then your opinion would be yours alone. If you survey enough people about the value of these books, then you'd have some data. If you haven't read them, then your talking from a nether orifice and your opinion is entirely bigoted.

PS. I watched the movie "The Hiding Place" the other day about the life of Corrie Ten Boom and her suffering in prison and at Ravensbrück for helping Jews. She is an example of why humanity needs to rely on more than science and rationality, because after the movie I question whether I'd have the strength and courage to do what she did. There is power in faith, whether or not you believe it to be real or not.

[Jester]

It is the latter, and our emotions that differentiate us from a hand held calculator.

The human brain is vastly more complex, and in most ways more powerful, than any computer ever designed. Who's to say that the difference is not in the complexity, rather than the emotions? You've never seen an artificial intelligence as complex as the human brain, and neither have I. This is a feel-good statement, not a statement of fact.

You are stating things without any supporting reference. I'd have to see a study documenting these claims. What is the "conversion" rate of the normal population, as opposed to just the "scientists". What do we mean by "conversion"? Who do we include in the "scientists"?

Agreed.

Anthropologically, you'd need to explain why disparate cultures have all gravitated toward embracing spirituality. It seems to be a human thing, not related to a specific idea that spread due to parental dominance and "brain washing".

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. We've labelled a whole series of disparate beliefs "spirituality," but they do not share any objective qualities. There is no inherent reason Buddha and Thor and Reiki and the Tao are part of the same phenomenon, except that we have post-hoc labelled them as such. Our modern category encompasses the set because we have built the category to do exactly that - it needs no further explanation.

If you've read them, then your opinion would be yours alone. If you survey enough people about the value of these books, then you'd have some data. If you haven't read them, then your talking from a nether orifice and your opinion is entirely bigoted.

Hunh? Is there any reason why a popular book is more true than an unpopular one? Does popularity have anything to do with truth? All you'd have is data on peoples' opinions, which has no traction on the truth at all.

There is power in faith, whether or not you believe it to be real or not.

Faith is real. The question is, whether the things you have faith in are. Crazy people can do things sane people cannot. That doesn't make crazy beliefs correct.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

And eppie, love and beauty are social constructs mate, not biological. Love might appear to have a biological component to it, such as between a mother and child, but even this relationship must be learned, and with the divorce rate in our society being 50%, I would say this is solid evidence that love changes, best friends can become strangers, and therefore, love is ultimately a social construct. Beauty is absolutely, 100% a social construct, for the exact same reasons that race is.

The type of beauty is indeed a social construct. It differs over time, and also geographically. But the fact that people seek for an 'attractive' made is a biological (evolutionary) process.

The fact that love changes does not mean it is only a social thing. It is a socially influenced biological thing.

It might be partially evolutionary, but I think it would be a mistake to think that it is entirely or even primarily based on this - that would be biological determinism. To support your theory, people generally do look for a mate that can, first and foremost, have a good chance of reproducing offspring. This may be why many men seek women who are younger, and why many women seek a man that is financially stable or ambitious. But there is so much more to it then that. Perceived intelligence, sense of humor, personality, compatibility, and a million other factors also play a part, probably much more than biological factors do at this point. If it was pure biology, we could all just find someone we consider attractive and is able to reproduce, marry them on the first date, and be done with it. But that isn't what we do - we are much more selective than that, and it is predominantly because of cultural and social factors, not so much biological ones. I'm not an Anthropologist, but even when Archaic humans developed, it is widely believed they were the first humans to have language and some degree of culture beyond tool-making and hunting - if this is the case, that would mean that men and women didn't congregate simply to reproduce, but also because of the dynamic social bonds and cohesion that were necessary for them to exist cooperatively - the development of so-called 'primitive communism' that was predominant for most of 'modern humans' existence (80-90% of it, in fact) until the development of hierarchical/class societies.

[kandrathe]

Hunh? Is there any reason why a popular book is more true than an unpopular one? Does popularity have anything to do with truth? All you'd have is data on peoples' opinions, which has no traction on the truth at all.

Books like Tao te Ching, Vedas, Bible, Torah, Talmud, Midrash, Quran, etc. are meant to be contemplated -- they aren't history, or ethics, or science -- they inform philosophy and thought. I didn't suggest it be measured by popularity, only by it's value to the reader.

His statement was one of incredulity that people find it to be *real*, which I understood to be a measure of value. As opposed to a work of fiction. You might just as well pontificate about the *realness* of the color "green". These books are what they are, and people seem to buy them, read them, and gain insight from them. I've stated this here before -- the truthiness can be quibbled about and theologians do it all day, but it's value is in how it shapes (and has shaped) our society for the better.

And, yes, there are dark parts as we are inherently greedy and murderous beings. Stuff like the Crusades, inquisition, James II -- the Holy Roman Empire, Corrupt popes, Henry VIII, etc. Centuries of rampaging nobles across Europe, slavery and expeditions of pillage and conquest. Where most any excuse has been used to justify our lusts for power and plunder.

Western civilization is what it is due to it's founding philosophies, which key among them are Christianity and Judaism.

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. We've labelled a whole series of disparate beliefs "spirituality," but they do not share any objective qualities. There is no inherent reason Buddha and Thor and Reiki and the Tao are part of the same phenomenon, except that we have post-hoc labelled them as such. Our modern category encompasses the set because we have built the category to do exactly that - it needs no further explanation.

So then you'd subscribe to the theory that for thousands of years parents have been brain washing their children? Perhaps we can blame Constantine, and the nobles of the Holy Roman Empire for beating it into us. My observations is that the quest for spirituality is universal in humans -- and, I do disagree that they are entirely disparate. There are huge similarities between the Christian Trinity and the Hindu god aspects (Brahma, Vishnu, & Shiva) -- likewise in the fundamental love based philosophy of Moism and Jesus. Then, take native American spirituality of "The Great Spirit" and contrast with Buddhist compassion and respect for every living creature.

[FireIceTalon]

I've stated this here before -- the truthiness can be quibbled about and theologians do it all day, but it's value is in how it shapes (and has shaped) our society for the better.

Better for who, and in what way? Oh wait, I know already....better for wealthy white, religious, straight males, and the preservation of their privileged social status and power.

And, yes, there are dark parts as we are inherently greedy and murderous beings.

LOL. Fuck no we aren't. This is hedonistic, human nature nonsense used to justify hierarchy and the subjugation of others, and it has been disproved anthropologically and historically numerous times. We have been around for about 200,000 years, and if we were inherently greedy and murderous, we would have never made it out of the trees. Thankfully we are much more clever, adaptable, and intelligent than that. Human behavior is a reflection of current economic, social, and political conditions, always. There is nothing inherent about it - never has been, never will be. I think the Engels quote in my sig says it best.

"Because of my inherently human greed and murderous ways, I stabbed him in the back because I saw he was wearing a nice pair of jeans that I wanted,". Tell that bullshit to the judge, and see what he says.

And if our current civilization is indeed what it is due to Christianity and Judaism, then damn, I guess this is conformation that religion is naturally idealistic, authoritarian, destructive, antagonistic, selfish, and therefore, society would be better off without it. Sounds like a plan to me - about time society was organized based on reason, rationality, and material circumstances - instead of abstract theories, idealism, subjective moralism, and lastly, the myth of individual free will. Religion is a crutch, and perhaps people will start recognizing the reality of the material circumstances of which is the cause of their suffering, instead of running into their biblical fantasy world, hoping to escape. Only to wake up the next day, and see that their problems still exist in the REAL world.

[Alram]

The notion that science is objective and rational is flawed.

A partial list of the problems with science include the following:

Scientists often have an agenda. Some examples of agendas include: getting funding, proving their views to be correct, political aims, getting published. These agendas can result in the scientist finding the result he or she is seeking to find.

Many scientific papers, including those published in respected journals fail to demonstrate sound scientific method. Common problems include a failure to control the variables, and conclusions which are not justified by the results. I know whereof I speak on this. My master's thesis was a critical examination of a certain segment of the medical literature, and most studies that I examined were flawed.

Manipulation of results and fabrication of experiments are not unknown in the scientific community.

The decision on what papers get published is made by men. Articles can be rejected or accepted for reasons which have little to do with their actual merit.

[FireIceTalon]

^^Strawman argument.

No one said science was perfect. But you are wrong: it IS based on objectivity and rationality - if it weren't, all scientific progress to date would be meaningless. Also, even when science is wrong, it still makes progress because it is a step closer to being right. At the end of the day, it is objective, and just as important, it is testable. Religion, not so - it subjective and completely idealist.

[kandrathe]

But you are wrong: it IS based on objectivity and rationality - if it weren't, all scientific progress to date would be meaningless. Also, even when science is wrong, it still makes progress because it is a step closer to being right. At the end of the day, it is objective, and just as important, it is testable.

The common failing is humanity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshitaka_Fujii

[FireIceTalon]

So because of one or two bad apples we should discontinue the scientific method as a way of understanding our world and making progress, and go back to listening to the Church or Temple and taking their word for it? I guess no one is stopping you. I refuse though.

[Occhidiangela]

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. We've labelled a whole series of disparate beliefs "spirituality," but they do not share any objective qualities. There is no inherent reason Buddha and Thor and Reiki and the Tao are part of the same phenomenon, except that we have post-hoc labelled them as such. Our modern category encompasses the set because we have built the category to do exactly that - it needs no further explanation.

Not quite. The "god gene" and the issue of "memes" are both topics of somewhat deeper examination than your discarding this as a simple fallacy.

I forget if it was Harris or Dawkins who arrived at the conclusion that over time, humans seem to have become hardwired toward that predilection. An interesting manifestation of evolution, no matter how you slice it, no matter your own biases.

[Jester]

Not quite. The "god gene" and the issue of "memes" are both topics of somewhat deeper examination than your discarding this as a simple fallacy.

Which gene is this? I don't think we have isolated anything like a "god gene". Vague speculation by famous atheists is nowhere near enough.

Memes, this is precisely the point - we have created a taxonomy of memes that lumps a bunch of disparate things together as "spiritual." But they share little, and are mutually contradictory. Their "similarity" is a product of our perspective, not an objective phenomenon.

I forget if it was Harris or Dawkins who arrived at the conclusion that over time, humans seem to have become hardwired toward that predilection. An interesting manifestation of evolution, no matter how you slice it, no matter your own biases.

I'll believe it when I see the genetics. Right now, it's all just a bunch of speculation - if you don't understand something about psychology, just blame evolution, and who can gainsay you? It's an "explanation" that explains nothing.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So because of one or two bad apples we should discontinue the scientific method as a way of understanding our world and making progress, and go back to listening to the Church or Temple and taking their word for it? I guess no one is stopping you. I refuse though.

You are the one making this an all or nothing proposition. The claim is that X and Y are incompatible, regardless of the countless number of successful renowned practitioners of X & Y. In those cases, the claim is that they are brain washed by their parents and incapable of exercising their vast IQ toward extirpating that residue of fuzzy thinking from their psyche. Which, speaking as a parent, vastly overstates our ability to shape a child's psyche, and vastly understates a geniuses capability to change their minds.

The third alternative you won't consider is that these science geniuses have carefully considered the situation, and made a rational choice -- one you don't understand, but nevertheless their choice. Most importantly for a plural society is that we respect... no, we should celebrate their freedom to be both X and Y, even though some don't understand it. But, I fear you are unable to allow yourself the possibility that a smart person maybe made a choice that was right for them. Would you also try to de-program the Dalai Lama -- another obviously brain washed product of parental authoritarianism.

[FireIceTalon]

So because of one or two bad apples we should discontinue the scientific method as a way of understanding our world and making progress, and go back to listening to the Church or Temple and taking their word for it? I guess no one is stopping you. I refuse though.

You are the one making this an all or nothing proposition. The claim is that X and Y are incompatible, regardless of the countless number of successful renowned practitioners of X & Y. In those cases, the claim is that they are brain washed by their parents and incapable of exercising their vast IQ toward extirpating that residue of fuzzy thinking from their psyche. Which, speaking as a parent, vastly overstates our ability to shape a child's psyche, and vastly understates a geniuses capability to change their minds.

The third alternative you won't consider is that these science geniuses have carefully considered the situation, and made a rational choice -- one you don't understand, but nevertheless their choice. Most importantly for a plural society is that we respect... no, we should celebrate their freedom to be both X and Y, even though some don't understand it. But, I fear you are unable to allow yourself the possibility that a smart person maybe made a choice that was right for them. Would you also try to de-program the Dalai Lama -- another obviously brain washed product of parental authoritarianism.

I don't have to make it anything - it already is an all or nothing proposition without my or anyone else's involvement. As I stated before, religion and science are not compatible with one another - the minute you inject the former into the latter, it is no longer science. Fact. It isn't a matter of being brainwashed or under/over estimating anything or anyone. It is a matter of converging an ideology (religion) into an objective Material analysis of the world, and making it a complete vulgarization of the latter that demeans it. Idealism and Materialism are diametrical opposites - you cannot combine the two. If you are a scientist, and you want to believe in a god, fine, but don't ever converge the two, cause then it is impossible to take you seriously.

[kandrathe]

I never said people couldn't be X and Y, and in fact, I've acknowledged many times that they can be both. What they CANNOT do is converge X and Y with one another in their profession as a scientist. As I stated before, religion and science are not compatible with one another - the minute you inject the former into the latter, it is no longer science....

I figured you'd begger out of it. Choose some useful skill like composing, or mathematics, and interject it into something philosophically esoteric. You can do it, you often just get crap. Although, sometimes, when someone is truly a master at both, the result is profound. Like Bach.

What is so hard to grasp about this?

Your ever shifting stand on the issue. And... I disagree.

If a person attempts to combine sculpture and poetry, and get crappy sculpture and crappy poetry then it's on their head and their professional reputation. Scientists can recognize good science, and are fully capable of peer reviewing others work to the tenets of their craft. If someone falls short, then its on their head. We don't need your prohibition to "never cross the streams", it innately exists in the pursuit of "truth".

This "I don't want no darn religious thinkers in my profession!" smacks of bigotry to me. So you excise them from science, what's next? Education? "I don't want no darn religious thinkers brain washing my children!" Then what?

A *real* scientist understand the need for testability, repeatability, and observability in hypothesis and experimentation. There is a lot of crappy theories (derived from the imaginations of rational minds) in science that have no foundation in equations, and are purely speculative. They are often just ideas seeking a foundation in reality. The solar system did not revolve around the Earth just because the Vatican said it was so. When people make disprovable claims, such as that, it only weakens their reputation in making future claims.

The frustrating thing for scientists today is the amount of crap being heaped into the journals, whether or not it's inspired by religiosity.

I would go so far as to say that the roots of science and the pursuit of understanding the natural world were often religious; Ever heard of Mendel? Copernicus? There are thousands of others... I'll leave you with this; "Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described" - A. Einstein, Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941

[FireIceTalon]

Well since you insist on injecting moralism and values into this, Ill play along. All the bigotry I see nowadays is coming from the religious Right if you ask me - who deny evolution even though it is long proven as fact, who think all gays are going to burn in "hell" and continue to treat them as second class citizens because of this religious dogma, who use other religions and groups of people they view as a threat to them as scapegoats, and who view women that get abortions or use contraceptives to be murderers and that if they get raped it is their own fault. Then you got chauvinistic, Fascist scum like Todd Akin that think women have a biological mechanism that prevents pregnancy in the case of a "legit" rape". Fuck, I had no idea there was such thing as a legit or illegitimate rape, or that women couldn't get pregnant in the case of the former If you want to know how I REALLY feel about these people, not only should they be banned from science, but they should all go throw themselves in a fire and spare the rest of us from having to listen to their satirical filled bullshit. I have nothing but contempt for these neo-fascist, science denying, anti-intellectual, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, sexist, war-mongering, jingoist, historical revisionist, conspiracy theory loving, bible thumping Tea Baggers. Just my opinion though.

As far as getting religion out of the education system, hardly. You want to learn about religion? Take a religion or philosophy class. Keep it out of my science classes though.

I really don't see how the poetry and sculpture example presses your point home. Art and poetry are both completely subjective, and you know this. Religion is subjective also, but more importantly, what it seeks to accomplish is too. The values and the goals of what religion wants to strengthen, or even what the values should be are purely subjective. Are the values and moralism that religious doctrine wants to uphold even worth upholding? Also subjective. Science has gaps and questions that still need answering, of course, some questions will remain unanswered forever. But it is still objective, and what it attempts to make sense of is also objective. It's water and oil man.

[eppie]

The notion that science is objective and rational is flawed.

A partial list of the problems with science include the following:

Scientists often have an agenda. Some examples of agendas include: getting funding, proving their views to be correct, political aims, getting published. These agendas can result in the scientist finding the result he or she is seeking to find.

Many scientific papers, including those published in respected journals fail to demonstrate sound scientific method. Common problems include a failure to control the variables, and conclusions which are not justified by the results. I know whereof I speak on this. My master's thesis was a critical examination of a certain segment of the medical literature, and most studies that I examined were flawed.

Manipulation of results and fabrication of experiments are not unknown in the scientific community.

The decision on what papers get published is made by men. Articles can be rejected or accepted for reasons which have little to do with their actual merit.

But no-one takes a single paper out of some journal and holds it as the ultimate truth, starts a church and a political party and tries to force other people to do the same.

If a paper is crap, fraudulent or whatever and important enough the truth will come out. Not every scientist has the purest of methods, but science as a whole works.

Religion doesn't. Take the Bible, since some very brave men led us out of the dark ages every time again things considered facts by the Catholic church have been proven to be wrong.....and this is a continuous process.
Of course it will not help to make people understand, because 'believing' has nothing to do with facts.

@kandrathe; yes religion can have positive sides.....but that doesn't make things in the bible true. (and as I said before I mean the supernatural things mainly)

---

Not quite. The "god gene" and the issue of "memes" are both topics of somewhat deeper examination than your discarding this as a simple fallacy.

Which gene is this? I don't think we have isolated anything like a "god gene". Vague speculation by famous atheists is nowhere near enough.

Memes, this is precisely the point - we have created a taxonomy of memes that lumps a bunch of disparate things together as "spiritual." But they share little, and are mutually contradictory. Their "similarity" is a product of our perspective, not an objective phenomenon.

I forget if it was Harris or Dawkins who arrived at the conclusion that over time, humans seem to have become hardwired toward that predilection. An interesting manifestation of evolution, no matter how you slice it, no matter your own biases.

I'll believe it when I see the genetics. Right now, it's all just a bunch of speculation - if you don't understand something about psychology, just blame evolution, and who can gainsay you? It's an "explanation" that explains nothing.

-Jester

I agree, looking for religion is a social thing. Someone who grows up in a land where no one ever talks about religion will not become religious.
People are scared and people like comfort.....religion helps you with that and that is why it attracts people. And that is indeed completely natural.

---

You are the one making this an all or nothing proposition. The claim is that X and Y are incompatible, regardless of the countless number of successful renowned practitioners of X & Y. In those cases, the claim is that they are brain washed by their parents and incapable of exercising their vast IQ toward extirpating that residue of fuzzy thinking from their psyche. Which, speaking as a parent, vastly overstates our ability to shape a child's psyche, and vastly understates a geniuses capability to change their minds.

As I said before, this has nothing to with intelligence. Brainwashing is very powerful....and fear of hell can keep people in church for their whole life.

Take the fact that most serial killers have had troubled childhoods.
Sexual predators also most off the time have been abused when they were a child. YES your upbringing can screw you up for the rest of your life.

A high IQ can help you to escape from your religion, but it is absolutely no guarantee.

[Jester]

Books like Tao te Ching, Vedas, Bible, Torah, Talmud, Midrash, Quran, etc. are meant to be contemplated -- they aren't history, or ethics, or science -- they inform philosophy and thought.

As opposed to history, ethics and science, which are not meant to be contemplated, and do not inform philosophy and thought? I don't understand the distinction.

I've stated this here before -- the truthiness can be quibbled about and theologians do it all day, but it's value is in how it shapes (and has shaped) our society for the better.

And for the worse.

Western civilization is what it is due to it's founding philosophies, which key among them are Christianity and Judaism.

Even granting that "Western civilization" is a thing (and not just a good idea, as Gandhi apocryphally said), it was founded long before the birth of Christ. Judaism was a small-time provincial middle eastern religion with no role whatsoever in shaping the dominant civilizations of the day. What about Greece? Rome? Socrates? Cicero? These have a much stronger claim to be founding influences. Christianity is a later development, and far less useful than the enormous body of logic, ethics, law, science and literature bequeathed to the world by the Greeks and Romans.

So then you'd subscribe to the theory that for thousands of years parents have been brain washing their children?

What does it mean to teach your children something which is false? Is that brainwashing? If so, then yes. If not, then it depends on what you mean by brainwashing.

Perhaps we can blame Constantine, and the nobles of the Holy Roman Empire for beating it into us.

The walrus was Paul.

My observations is that the quest for spirituality is universal in humans -- and, I do disagree that they are entirely disparate. There are huge similarities between the Christian Trinity and the Hindu god aspects (Brahma, Vishnu, & Shiva) -- likewise in the fundamental love based philosophy of Moism and Jesus. Then, take native American spirituality of "The Great Spirit" and contrast with Buddhist compassion and respect for every living creature.

What are the similarities between the Christian Trinity and the gods of Hinduism? There is a strict formal similarity - many gods in one - but beyond that, they are vastly different, in meaning, ethic, aesthetic, tradition, purported influence, worship, and so on. If what you are looking for are things that let you tie them together, you will find them. But you can always make new categories, or break them. What I think we are observing is a human need for narrative, part of how we make sense of the world around us. We use metaphor, storytelling, myth, theory, evidence, logic, and all our other tools to gain understanding. But not all tools are created equal.

In this view, religion is no different from science or philosophy, and can be judged by the same criteria - and found wanting. These stories may have helped explain the world and organize society in ages past, but we now have vastly better tools at our disposal. We no more need to look deeply for value in old tales than farmers need to plow with oxen. It's not that it doesn't work at all, it's that we can do much, much better.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Take the fact that most serial killers have had troubled childhoods. Sexual predators also most off the time have been abused when they were a child. YES your upbringing can screw you up for the rest of your life.

...as can being run over by a car. I'm not sure what you are grasping at here. Being taught a moral philosophy is akin to rape and murder? Very nice. You clearly lack perspective. If you think it's about fear, then you are misguided.

A high IQ can help you to escape from your religion, but it is absolutely no guarantee.

Yes, those poor, poor, brilliant, rational scientists can hardly escape from one of the world's most dominant life philosophies which has under-pinned modern society for centuries.

[kandrathe]

As opposed to history, ethics and science, which are not meant to be contemplated, and do not inform philosophy and thought? I don't understand the distinction.

Well, you don't tend to re-read and meditate over your freshmen physics texts -- unless you are a freshman in physics -- and then it's not a matter of desire, but more one of practical hate. People don't tend to gather every Sunday in large groups to hear a credentialed local expert talk about Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

Judaism was a small-time provincial middle eastern religion with no role whatsoever in shaping the dominant civilizations of the day. What about Greece? Rome? Socrates? Cicero? These have a much stronger claim to be founding influences. Christianity is a later development, and far less useful than the enormous body of logic, ethics, law, science and literature bequeathed to the world by the Greeks and Romans.

The issue was that it was exclusive. You needed to be born into it.

What does it mean to teach your children something which is false? Is that brainwashing? If so, then yes. If not, then it depends on what you mean by brainwashing.

What makes morality false? It's appeal is not the antiquarian historical reinterpretation of Middle Eastern myths -- Genesis 1-11, which is what most every non-Christian gets hung up about. And, yet even in those stories there are lessons for us. Noah, and the Ark is an interesting story, but the details are not the focus. The lesson in the story is his faith and obedience even when his calling seemed ludicrous, and then even in the face of ridicule by those who don't understand. Also, important theologically is the explanation of God's covenant with humanity, which is re-asserted with Moses, and then rewritten by Christ. Perhaps it's based on some real life incident, but just like Paul Bunyan, its become embellished through centuries of oral re-telling before it was finally penned in ~250 BCE. It's value is not the accuracy of its science or history -- and the overwhelming bulk of Christians don't dwell on the details.

The best explanation for the inclusion of the Old Testament (Migra) in Christianity, is that it provides context and reference for the new inclusive Christian sect mostly established by Paul in Rome. I teach my children the positive things like forgiveness, universal love, "turning the other cheek", the power of faith, discipline, honesty, integrity, integration into society, submission to authority, to seek value in the people and things around you and then also to deal with humanities more negative and destructive aspects, such as arrogance, envy, avarice, apathy, carnality, violence, consumerism.

What are the similarities between the Christian Trinity and the gods of Hinduism?

We could go into great detail, but in the big picture the aspects encompass creator, preserver, and destroyer.

There is a strict formal similarity - many gods in one - but beyond that, they are vastly different, in meaning, ethic, aesthetic, tradition, purported influence, worship, and so on. If what you are looking for are things that let you tie them together, you will find them. But you can always make new categories, or break them.

Certainly, there are differences.

What I think we are observing is a human need for narrative, part of how we make sense of the world around us. We use metaphor, storytelling, myth, theory, evidence, logic, and all our other tools to gain understanding.

Partly, that is true. Religion often provides context for each persons existence, but moreover I think it provides comfort in the face of adversity. The more a person suffers, the more they need comfort, be it from society, or beyond. What all modern religions have in common is their message of compassion. When someone is entirely alone, then, they are still not alone. You may see that as placebo, but you cannot dispute the results. I see that there is a need. We are still greedy, murderous barbarians at heart. Anything that unites us toward a interconnected compassionate society is a good thing. I would offer as evidence the transformation of my own people of Scandinavia.

It's not that it doesn't work at all, it's that we can do much, much better.

... and, what has the other side produced in this regard? Secular humanism? How's that working?