Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

[jj]

There sure is a lot of things to read relating to the subject of the first post.

..and there's some more good reading here

That was quite an excellent summary you found, Bear.

It is good that it points out that the DI specifically was opposed to Divine Right, even though it mentions "God", as what many would have us believe at the present is that the DI is in fact an affirmation of faith, rather than a rejection of commonly held dogma.

 

[Jocko]

Yet, your American rights - where everything starts - are endowed you by your Creator.

See, you understand that here. When it comes to your 2nd amendment rant, however, you suddenly go stupid. What gives?

Oh, that's right, you get off on being obtuse. I forgot.

 

[jj]

See, you understand that here. When it comes to your 2nd amendment rant, however, you suddenly go stupid. What gives?

Oh, that's right, you get off on being obtuse. I forgot.

I'm not sure where CFL is headed here, either. The DI was a document refuting the dogma of Divine Right, in very great part.

The "inalienable rights" come down differently in the constitution, which does not invoke a creator at all.

As to the second amendment, would it surprise you that I am not a proponent of any kind of strong gun regulation?

I do think that any gun owner ought to have to watch, see, and show a basic understanding of what guns do, both to people and other things. In addition, safety training is good.

Any such training should not be construed, constructed, or manipulated into being a gun restriction for able-minded citizens. Even the term "able-minded" is dangerous, because I can easily see someone using the phrase to deny guns to some faction, so there has to be some fairly wide understanding of the idea ENFORCED.

Now, when we get to convicted criminals, it's a different story, but that's not what the basic discussion is about, is it?

Another related issue, of course, is the issue of guns vs. explicitly suicidal people. When is suicide mental illness, and when is it not? What is your position?

Perhaps this is meat for a different thread, since that's not what we are talkign about here.

 

[da bear]

I know that I'm on the periphery here, but I'm just reading and kind of re-forming my own knowledge and opinion on some things.

One of the most interesting things that I've read so far, and something that strikes a cord with me, is this bit from the link that I posted earlier.

James Madison, however, balances Webster in a letter to Thomas Jefferson about possible restraints of majorities who might persecute minorities:


Religion. The inefficacy of this restraint on individuals is well known. The conduct of every popular Assembly, acting on oath, the strongest of religious ties, shews that individuals join without remorse in acts against which their consciences would revolt, if proposed to them separately in their closets. When indeed religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it.

 

[hammegk]

It ain't mine, but this does the job nicely.

Mentioning that the entire Decline & Fall triplet exist doesn't actually count as a citation as that word is usually used. Your Doctoral dissertion is the one I wanted -- where you justify what you stated previously is actually Gibbon's conclusion.

And this:
is a terrible misreading of what I wrote - the Islamic tradition saved the western texts, whereas the christian tradition mostly saved the hagiographies and church histories. The renaissance occurred when the texts saved by the muslim scholars were reintroduced into western society eventually resulting in the Enlightenment.

Er, yes? All I mentioned was that continuing learning & erudition based on Western mores was done by Islamists in arabic. I'd say that "Saving Western texts" is a minor footnote to the actual arabs' accomplishments in advancing science during the EU dark ages, and providing at least part of the basis for the Enlightenment.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

As long as religion DOES NOT INTEREFERE IN SCIENCE I'm content.

But the problem we see in this country, now, is that religion IS INTERFERING IN SCIENCE and is representing itself as TRVTH, even in places where it can be tested and SHOWN WRONG.

The only times religion really comes into direct conflict with science (not with secular-minded folks, but with actual science) are when creationism rears its ugly head in the school system, but that fight has been going on a long time, the current administration isn't exactly a backer of creationism, and they aren't really making any permanent gains. So I'm really not sure why you're running around playing chicken little on the issue. Or are you simply conflating science vs. religion with secularism vs. religion? For example, the whole ten commandments fiasco in Alabama was a conflict between religion and secularism, not between religion and science.

I require that you fully and completely admit that I have not taken the position that you have disgustingly laid at my feet.

Well, I'm frankly at a bit of a loss as to what position you're really taking. Because what you started out saying sounded a whole lot like a defense of secularism against religion. That is indeed a major political fight, with Bush and other prominant republicans seeming to want to expand the role of religion in the public sphere. But aside from creationism (which is NOT a conflict you can blame on Bush or the republican leadership), there really isn't any significant political conflict between religion and science in the US. As for what you require of me, oh please. You're not in a position to require anything of anyone on this board, and neither am I. If you think I've misrepresented your position, then present your case, but don't expect an appology for daring to engage you in debate.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Which one used it?

So you're going to evade actually answering my question then.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

I don't intend to enter into any form of debate with you regarding my answer, it completely answered your question (as far as I am concerned).

If you feel that way.

Basically you are saying that there is bad in religion, good in science, but that any bad in science is caused by the people doing science, not by the science. Well, the point is that why doesn't your argument apply to religion as well?

In other words, you said humans came up with the atomic bomb, when I brought that up as a bad thing science did. Well, humans came up with the Inquistion too, so therefore that isn't due to religion, but to humans, by your reasoning.

Pretty black and white, like the opening post that talks about the good in science, the bad in religion, but utterly ignores the bad in science and the good in religion.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

If you feel that way.

Basically you are saying that there is bad in religion, good in science, but that any bad in science is caused by the people doing science, not by the science. Well, the point is that why doesn't your argument apply to religion as well?

...snip...

This blatant misrepresentation of what I posted demonstrates why I did not intend to enter into any form of discussion or debate with you.

This is not what I posted and cannot be logically inferred from my answer. To repeat the exchange so you cannot continue this misrepresentation of what I posted in this thread:

The post I responded to was:

The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method.

Religious "Principles" gave us the persecution of Gallelio, the Inquisition, and the dark ages.

Which one came up with the atomic bomb?

My response:

Which one came up with the atomic bomb? [/B]

Neither - humans did.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Darat, you just repeated yourself.

My point was that for my example of bad in science, you attributed it to "humans". Ok fine, so why isn't the bad in religion attributed to "humans", but to religion itself?

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

[/i]





So you're going to evade actually answering my question then. [/B]

There's no question to avoid. Your question is suborned to start with.

Humans built the bomb, and they used it.

You've already tried to weasel around the facts with Darat, I see no reason to bother with you or your weasel-wording at all.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Darat, you just repeated yourself.

My point was that for my example of bad in science, you attributed it to "humans". Ok fine, so why isn't the bad in religion attributed to "humans", but to religion itself?

Another suborned question, presuming "bad" illicitly.

Your arguments are obviously, pathetically, and grossly malicious. Do you think that's so hard to see?

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

...This is not what I posted and cannot be logically inferred from my answer. ...

Well....there's always *tortured* logic....

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem is that some of us who are secular, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, have nobody to represent us.

...

Unfortunately, this is at the expense of dealing with an empowered set of religious nutjobs.

Enlightenment thinkers often railed against the curse of party along with those of Church and Monarchy. They had to explain the disappointments of the Mother of Parliaments, apart from anything else. You find yourself faced with a broad church (sic) spanning the principles you hold and others you don't, but the Republicans need the Religious Right if they're to gain power in a two-horse contest. Or at least they think they do, and they're better placed to know than me.

 

[CapelDodger]

As far as the OP goes, morality is founded in religion (consciously or not).

Not at all. Morality is based on innate human instincts and a concept of decent behaviour. Children of four or five understand what's just and unjust, right and wrong. Religions take this morality and feed it back, claiming authorship and decking it with new items, usually starting with tithes. And addendums : "It's wrong to kill, but ... with heretics it's self-defence". "It's wrong to steal, but ... these people aren't Christian, so fill your boots." "Love is the esssence of the Creation but ... no poofs." "Veal is good, but not when seethed in its mother's milk" ( self-serving, of course, but damned if I can see why. I guess you had to be there.) And so on.

And the King's enemies - you can kill them too. No problem.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think that the OP is guilty of cherry-picking and is completely ignoring the contribution of religion in the promotion of learning throughout the ages including:

- The preservation, by Imams of the contents of the great classical libraries

Far more often by temporal powers, such as caliphs and kings.

- The foundation of universities throughout the world

Again, mostly temporal powers. Cardinal Wolsey may have founded a college, but he wasn't much of a Churchman. Which could be said of most titular high churchmen of the 9th to 16thCE. This may have led to the misunderstanding.

- Supporting the great scientists of the early middle ages (e.g. Bacon)

The great scientists of Bacon's time were in Mesopotamia, India and China. Where their patrons were temporal powers. Other European scientists made a living in the military sphere - often working for the Pope, admittedly - and, of course, in ship-building and navigation.

- Being the primary source of literate people in the West

Sadly, most medieval priests were illiterate. The literacy drive was more to serve the growing needs of governments - and to make sure there were plenty of clerics in there looking after business.

It's only when society advanced sufficiently that "enlightened" poeple could earn a living in the open market that religious organisations stopped being the pre-eminent supporter of science.

Did I mention mining and refining? That was another employer of scientists. Often practice leads to theorising.

Even as late as the 19th century, many prominent scientists and naturalists were also employed by the church.

One way of establishing a son that wasn't the heir was to obtain for them - by purchase or influence - a "living", a parish (or three) to provide an income for light semi-skilled duties. The sort of thing that left a man with time to indulge his hobbies.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'd argue that the worst examples of religious oppression in history were the result of unholy alliances between church and state, each party pursuing power.

The earliest records we have show the major players to have been God-Kings. Even Roman Emperors were Pontifex Maximus. Clearly a development for much earlier agricultural times. When food surpluses first arose, some people realised that they were bigger and/or nastier than other people and could scare them into giving them food. Thus was born the Aristocracy. Others found that they were cleverer than other people, and could scare them into giving them food. Thus was born the Priesthood. The Priest gives the King a "God says I'm King, me" T-shirt, and the King stops people bullying the Priest and makes sure he gets his 10%. (CapelDodger's Potted History of the World, para. 1.)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

There's no question to avoid. Your question is suborned to start with.

Humans built the bomb, and they used it.

You say that humans built the bomb, ok, but isn't it obvious that science had much more to do with its theory, design, construction, use, and analysis of the effects than religion?

Additionally, if you say "Humans built the bomb", why do you ask me "Which one used it?" Isn' the answer to that "Humans." as well? Or are you implying that religion used the bomb?

Can science ever be pinned down for anything bad like religion seems to be?

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

You say that humans built the bomb, ok, but isn't it obvious that science had much more to do with its theory, design, construction, use, and analysis of the effects than religion?
<SNIP>

The atomic bomb was used at the direction of the US president during wartime, after a decision making process that included various inputs...

'Science' was consulted on likely results, outcomes, and consequences of it's use.

But who was consulted as to the morality of the decision?

President HARRY TRUMAN "... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us. We thank God that it has come to us instead of to our enemies and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His way and for His purposes."

http://www.cdi.org/adm/847/transcript.html

 

[da bear]

I'd just like to throw something out there.


I think that maybe people concentrate too much on the extreme negatives. I don't deny those, but I think that they should be used as lessons, not as examples.

Although I'm not a religious person, I try not to ridicule those that are, or those that are only a bit religious. Extreme fundamentalists are another story though. I personally don't think that these kind of people fully understand the religion that they subscribe to, whatever it may be. I would say that Buddhists would be an exception to that though, but then I don't really think of Buddhism as a religion anyway, more as a philosophy.(No, I'm not a Buddhist)

The thing that has to be remembered, at least IMO, is that at the very core of pretty much all the worlds religions is a message of peace and harmony. I think that throughout history, that's the message that's stuck with the majority of the "common folk". It's probably the message that's saved humanity a number of times. That sounds simplistic, but I think there's truth in it.

We tend to concentrate on the atrocities, but fail to acknowledge the good. We want to dismiss religion now that we feel we are enlightened, but fail to remember the basic messages that these religions teach, and have taught for a very long time.

As we move away from organized religions, yes I believe that we will in the end, I think the tricky part is going to be that we don't leave those basic messages behind. They have value no matter whether you believe in a supreme being, or reincarnation, or whatever.