Science and Faith

[Kalium]

1. Creationism

What are you saying here? Creationism is bad because _____? Because it conflicts with evolution? Because it conflicts with science? Is the assumption then that anything that conflicts with science is bad and should be discarded?

It's bad because it's a waste of time, money, other resources, is poisoning minds and ensuring slow economic heat-death, and most of all, because it's flat-out wrong. It's stupid on levels that defy words.

2. Oppression of women

Iffy. Humans tend to like power, and if that means oppressing those weaker than themselves, that's what they'll do. Women are raped, abused, and oppressed all the time by non-religious men. Some oppression can be traced to religious customs, certainly. Oppression can also be traced to pure atheists. Believing in a God is not a direct correlation to female oppression. Oppression of women has been a global standard since antiquity, in and out of religion.

Read your Bible recently? It's not exactly nice to the fairer sex, to say the least. Nevermind all the slavery stuff. Don't even get me started on some of the dumber provisions, like the Sabbath Year and the Jubilee.

3. Intolerance of other religions and/or unbelievers

Probably the strongest point. Religion is, unfortunately, rife with instances of cruel intolerance toward others. Unfortunately, intolerance is also prevalent anytime anyone believes in anything. You claim that religion "blinds" people and should be discarded. Is that not intolerance of those who don't believe your "scientific" worldview?

I'm not claiming that it shouldn't exist or that it should be purged by fire. I'm claiming that it's counterproductive. The distinction is fine but significant. I'm plenty willing to tolerate the existence, I just think it's foolhardy at best.

And for the last, define "objective reality claim"?

"A verifiable claim about the objective nature of reality." Will that do? Stuff like "gravity exists" and "a magnetic field induces an electric field".

[Otohiko]

Well define faith in that case. I mean it's obvious that social reality is, to some part, based on faith since a lot of it comes with second-hand evidence or worse. I don't disagree with the idea that some faith is required in anything; on the other hand, I do disagree with faith as at any point an overriding factor. If faith is something that requires you to take a leap of trust, fine. If this assumes shutting off logical/critical/pragmatic facility while doing it, NOT fine.

[requiett]

You know what? Here. Here's a good social application for faith:

People who aren't as well educated as all of you seem to be don't get often very nice jobs. Their lives tend to be downright shitty. Yet, they end up doing all the labor to make all the nice fruits of science. They harvest crops, make shoes, and clothing and houses so others like you can concentrate on arguing how useless religion is. So if faith offers a little haven for the miserable masses to continue with their daily lives, why not let them have it?

[Otohiko]

Let them. But I'll look down on that as, in Russian terms, "mrakobesiye" ('raving-in-the-dark').

It's an escape. It's unneccesary. It's the source of many social problems which could easily be solved were everyone reasonable.

[requiett]

But everyone isn't reasonable, and it's unreasonable to expect them to be so.

[Kalium]

Because it allows them the illusion that they can't do better. Because I do not find subjugating the foolish masses a good use of anything, for any reason. Because I think hope is a positive emotion, and should be used towards positive ends.

Social control is not a positive end. They do not have to be miserable, and I see no reason to spoon-feed them that illusion.

On top of that, the effects several hundred years down the road are undesirable.

[requiett]

I see no reason to spoon-feed them that illusion.

But you don't know everything. I don't understand how you're living in any less of an illusion. You have no grounds to argue this kind of topic from.

[Otohiko]

By the way, I don't see why 'littleness' has to be associated with a need for faith. I've done my share of public toilet cleaning, I've had my share of being beaten the crap out of, I've had my share of being poor but I don't see why faith is required to deal with it and stay sane.

[Kalium]

I see no reason to spoon-feed them that illusion.

But you don't know everything. I don't understand how you're living in any less of an illusion. You have no grounds to argue this kind of topic from.

Yes, actually, I do. I know that it's possible for them to improve their means, because it's been done. There is no reason to and every reason not to try to make them content with their measly lot.

[Shazzy]

Read your Bible recently? It's not exactly nice to the fairer sex, to say the least. Nevermind all the slavery stuff. Don't even get me started on some of the dumber provisions, like the Sabbath Year and the Jubilee.

Sure, a lot of religious customs regarding women are not "nice," especially in the post-women's-lib era. Neither is it "nice" that a girl a floor below me was raped twice (in a span of 2 weeks) by a complete stranger (who broke into her apartment window) who couldn't care less about religion. It's more probable that oppression towards women (read: people weaker in some aspect) is a nearly omnipresent carnal human attribute. Laying the blame for female oppression squarely on religion isn't accurate.

I'm not claiming that it shouldn't exist or that it should be purged by fire. I'm claiming that it's counterproductive. The distinction is fine but significant. I'm plenty willing to tolerate the existence, I just think it's foolhardy at best.

Fair enough. Many religious people feel the same way about atheists, though. They're not trying to nuke the Gentiles, but they think an atheistic viewpoint is less than true.