What is your religion, if any?

[Seneca]

Hey youngdad. Thanks for the reply.

 

I don't know what Plantiga is.

 

He's a philosopher of religion with some questionabe arguments about epistemolgoy and naturalism. I think it's mostly just sophistry that he engages in. But since that isn't where you're coming from, I am actually curious to know about these compelling non-scientific ideas against modern evolutionary theory that you mentioned.

 

Good stuff. Except how can one evaluate the validity of something that a person has faith in when it requires genuine faith to be understood. Many religious practices and teachings are coherent, logical, rational, and simple, but some just are not. But why would that make them less true?

 

Hmm, requires genuine faith to be understood? Maybe it requires genuine faith to be believed but can you give me an example of something that actually requires faith as a prerequisite for understanding? I am pretty sure I can understand the structure and content of any religious belief system without having any kind of faith in it. If it is intelligible, then it can (at least partially) be evaluated for its validity by using a variety of publicly available criteria.

 

Now for the religious teachings that are not coherent and such: If something is incoherent and illogical, then it should be obvious why it wouldn't be considered true. Logical impossibility is pretty much as fundamental of a definition of 'falsehood' as you can get. I hope that much is obvious. Regarding simplicity, what I am referring to is ontological simplicity - (i.e. how many complex assumptions does your metaphysical system rely upon). Complex assumptions have to be justified by adding something to an explanation, else they are just superfluous and arbitrary. This does not necessarily make such assumptions less true in an absolute sense (since we have no access to absolute truth) but it does cast doubt on the claim that these assumptions are justified - i.e. that they are anything more than arbitrary.

 

I don't believe that my system of beliefs is arbitrary. But I understand that from a public perspective it might look arbitrary. I get that: I can totally understand why all of religion looks arbitrary to a non-religious person. If I had not had the experiences that I have had in my life I probably wouldn't believe any of it.

 

Seems that you're invoking more than just faith. You're invoking a particular kind of personal experience. This is different. It depends on the nature of your experience - i.e. was it what some would call a genuine mystical experience? But such experiences can only work as justifications for you. If you want anyone else to accept your interpretation of said experience, or even to accept the claim that it is rational, then you have to give an argument as to why your interpretation of the experience is a better one than a skeptic's. This is something that you seem to understand though.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think all of religion looks arbitrary. I am actually fairly well versed in the basic beliefs of many religions and used to be a deeply religious individual myself at one point. I actually think that a lot of the eastern traditions actually make some solid philosophical points, once you peel away all the supernaturalist BS.

 

I also understand that my beliefs will probably not be taken seriously in the public sphere or that I can demand any respect them. But this is not because I recognize the arbitrary nature of them. It is political unfortunately. If everyone in this country believed what I do then I would get respect in the public sphere. It seems what you are suggesting is that minority opinions of what is evidence shouldn't get respect or be taken seriously. Do you actually mean this?

 

No, it has nothing to do with whether an opinion is in the minority or not. It has to do with the nature of justification used for that particular opinion. The actual reasons for why you can't expect some of your beliefs to carry any weight in the public sphere are probably political. But these reasons differ from what I think should be the real reasons. The real reasons for why you shouldn't expect it are epistemic. If you're not using justification that is publicly available (i.e. evidence, rational argument for what should count as evidence and why etc.) then you cannot expect anyone to take your claims seriously. This has nothing to do with who's in the majority and who isn't.

 

I should note, just for clarification, that when I say you shouldn't expect any kind of respect for your views, I don't mean that they must therefore be treated with derision and ridicule. I simply mean that it is ok for others to simply dismiss them and not give them any special status beyond any other personal and [seemingly] arbitrary opinion that someone may hold. I also accept that your beliefs may not be arbitrary, but from here it's often hard to tell. If you actually wanted to convince anyone of that point, you'd have to outline your non-arbitrary reasons and then subject said reasons to scrutiny to see if they hold. This is, of course, only if you wanted to convince anyone.

 

The findings or the data in science are indisputable, but the meaning of the findings are always subject to opinion.

 

Yes, but the frameworks within which we understand the findings (i.e. theories) are themselves subject to evaluation by various criteria of adequacy. So it's not merely personal opinion that rules the day. But I do not deny subjectivity in science. Subjectivity exists in all human endavors.

 

 

The problem seems to be what is accepted as evidence and what the evidence means. I am involved in solid research and scientific study and have yet to encounter a scientific finding or principle that cannot fit into the context of my religious beliefs in some way.

 

Well that means that your religious beliefs are flexible and sophisticated enough so that, at least, they do not contradict empirical evidence. Presumably then, you would agree with the claims that humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor, that the earth is approx 4 billion years old, etc. That earns you a point in my book. It does not necessarily earn a pass for the rest of your religious belief system, but at the very least it eliminates some of the friction between any faith-based claims and empirical evidence.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what religious framework do you approach these questions from?

 

Cheers,

 

 

Seneca

[abcwxyz]

I see a lot of people, particularly on forums, get bogged down with debating religious philosophy and what not.

 

I don't understand the point.

 

We will kill or imprison all the terrorists etc, and others who seek to impose extremist views upon the rest of the population. No one listens to the non-terrorists.

 

Restrictions against euthanasia are one of the only relics of religion in legislation. Debating euthanasia may have a point. Other than that, who cares.

 

As long as everyone respects everyone else's spiritual views, a required quality in a doctor, it's all good.

[Seneca]

Good post Seneca. After I posted my item I just saw this gigantic thread and wondered if that's how much I wrote LOL. What was your major?

 

Thanks. lol yeah, it was pretty long.. amazing what you can accomplish when you're determined to ignore the rest of your work huh? haha. I'm just a life science major, but I have a side-interest in philosophy, religion, and all that other fun stuff. Mostly for when I need to procrastinate .

[Seneca]

I see a lot of people, particularly on forums, get bogged down with debating religious philosophy and what not.

 

I don't understand the point.

 

Well, a lot of it has to do with some deep existential questions. Debating your opinions and having them challenged so that you can learn, grow, etc. can be the point itself. At least it's one possible point. There's also procrastination, as I've mentioned, lol.

 

We will kill or imprison all the terrorists etc, and others who seek to impose extremist views upon the rest of the population. No one listens to the non-terrorists.

 

I disagree. Plenty of people listen to creationists, New Age BS, and so on. This can have negative consequences beyond legislation or terrorism or whatever. I also don't think that killing and imprisoning terrorists will solve anything in the long term. You want a long term solution to extremism, then education is the key.

 

Restrictions against euthanasia are one of the only relics of religion in legislation. Debating euthanasia may have a point. Other than that, who cares.

 

Have you been paying attention to what happened to science in the US over the past 8 years? This goes a bit further than just euthanasia.

 

As long as everyone respects everyone else's spiritual views, a required quality in a doctor, it's all good.

 

If by respect you mean a basic level of respect for one's right to hold a belief that we extended to everyone, then I fully agree. Beyond that, I think respect is earned. Some spiritual beliefs are fine. Others are idiotic and should be challenged. Did you hear of Proposition 8 in California? Do you think the motivation behind it was secular?

 

As a doctor, I'm not required to give special respect to anyone's spiritual beliefs beyond the very basic. If some homophobe from the Westboro Baptist Church ends up as my patient, I will leave their beliefs aside because I'm a pragmatist. But I'll still think they're biggoted idiots. It's just not my place to criticize them in my capactity as a doctor.

 

Seneca

[abcwxyz]

Well, a lot of it has to do with some deep existential questions. Debating your opinions and having them challenged so that you can learn, grow, etc. can be the point itself. At least it's one possible point. There's also procrastination, as I've mentioned, lol.

 

 

 

I disagree. Plenty of people listen to creationists, New Age BS, and so on. This can have negative consequences beyond legislation or terrorism or whatever. I also don't think that killing and imprisoning terrorists will solve anything in the long term. You want a long term solution to extremism, then education is the key.

Extremism is small in Canada. Creationists don't have a significant influence in our secular education system. Killing terrorists like the Taliban abroad decreases the pervasion of extremists ideologies to Canada. Imprisoning terrorists in Canada eliminates the problem; most youth are well assimilated and not drawn to extremism like in Europe or the middle east.

 

Have you been paying attention to what happened to science in the US over the past 8 years? This goes a bit further than just euthanasia.

 

It does not go further than euthanasia in Canada. There was the religious schools issue in the 2007 Ontario election but that's about it.

 

If by respect you mean a basic level of respect for one's right to hold a belief that we extended to everyone, then I fully agree. Beyond that, I think respect is earned. Some spiritual beliefs are fine. Others are idiotic and should be challenged. Did you hear of Proposition 8 in California? Do you think the motivation behind it was secular?

 

If they are not affecting others and not affecting legislation, they should be respected. Canada exists in a different political situation than America; proposition 8 does not concern us.

As a doctor, I'm not required to give special respect to anyone's spiritual beliefs beyond the very basic. If some homophobe from the Westboro Baptist Church ends up as my patient, I will leave their beliefs aside because I'm a pragmatist. But I'll still think they're biggoted idiots. It's just not my place to criticize them in my capactity as a doctor.

 

Seneca

You are required to respect his views by maintaining an appropriate standard of care and maintaining professionalism.

[seeking1]

I thought religion was made obsolete by the advent of science?

 

It kind of amazes me that we have books that theoretically could have been written by just about anybody that enbodies outdated social conventions can be taken so seriously (where was the critical analysis). I wonder how many people have picked up their Bible and noticed the excessive violence and brutality over nothing. God doesn't believe in the concept of punishment fits the crime: http://www.evilbible.com/

 

The funny thing is when Christianity was first formed (as a political toy of Constantine) they had the Council of Nicea. Basically it was like 'ok ok guys we gotta get our stories straight and write this **** down to be credible'.

 

How many people read the Koran and saw the quotes about harming others simply because they are not religious or of another religion and simply disregarded them (or actually followed them! UK 2005/South Thailand/US 9/11/Bali): http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html

 

I think religion presents a net bad in humanity, it was a way for primitive chieftains back in the day to maintain subservience in their subjects (neolithic). During the Roman era it was abused to no end for political gain lol. Emperors would proclaim themselves Gods and open temples to their clemency (Caesar). Who would sacrifice their standard of living for someone else (i.e. Kings)?

 

Not only does religion not respect people, it promotes hate and intolerance against seemingly meaningless things (homosexuality):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2859606.ece

It divides people into believers and non-believers (what does it even matter anyway?). Do the believers know for a fact that there is a god? No. It's a primitive form of nationalism.

 

My stance is individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression (which is why I haven't stepped up to say that religion should be banned), unfortunately if religion had its way I probably wouldn't be given the same mercy (see Copernicus/Gallileo for even suggesting the world was round!!!). They would probably burn me at a stake for blashpheme, or decapitate me for stating fact and truth, it does not allow for freedom of speech or expression (if I ****ed a man in my own private property, what business is it of someone else? Is looting via tithes and killing (Crusade/Jihad) not a more heinous crime? The concept of afterlife presents a celestial dictatorship, where after I die, I am still a slave/subject to God in his 'King'dom. It kept serfs serfs in life, and even so in the afterlife. It's a primitive form of collectivism.

 

Religion is primitive and inherently evil in principle (seeks to subjugate man and society under a tyrant and obliterate those that follow another tyrant). How many wars in the past were caused by religion? How many wars today are caused by it? How much freedom was stripped away from man by a religiously backed tyrant(s)? Women's rights (even today)?

 

Anyway if anyone is so inclined to believe in this stuff, it's up to them, but it's best kept out of public affairs (separation of church and state). I take no issue with people practicing this stuff within the confines of their own home/community. I just can't understand it given the facts of history. If you've studied history or science I can't see how someone can be religious. But then again, there are scientologists lol.

 

Anyway I figured I should turn up the intellectual notch.

 

Just on a light note and for some funnies: http://www.economist.com/daily/chart...ry_id=13062613

 

 

Needs more nihilism, lol.

 

All the arguments and tl;dr's aside: who cares?

 

So long as you aren't stupid about life, or imposing on the way people live, then choose whatever you feel like. Its a waste to argue with people over religion; just be more practical and useful then them, and I assure you, more people will pay attention to you. Isn't that one of the glorious aspects of medicine?

[Seneca]

abcwxyz,

 

If we're just talking about Canada, then yes, I agree (for the most part). I was making broader points of principle. Since these discussions are more about philosophical principles, however, there's no need to restrict discussion solely to what directly affects us within our borders. But that being said, I am not just concerned about Canada. Canada does not exist in a vacuum. What happens in the rest of the world, especially the US, affects us. All the more reason that it makes sense to bring it into a discussion.

 

If they are not affecting others and not affecting legislation, they should be respected.

 

Well that first condition often remains unfulfilled. But what exactly do you mean by respect? That is, what does this imply for you? I respect someone's right to hold a particular opinion, and to not be denied any rights or opportunities on the basis of that, so we agree there. But do you think that there is some respect for the opinion itself that I am required to have beyond that, by default? Is it just religious opinions, or all others too? What about political ones? If an idea finds its way into the public sphere and I challenge it, am I being disrespectful?

 

You are required to respect his views by maintaining an appropriate standard of care and maintaining professionalism.

 

Agreed. That is exactly what I would do by virtue of my pragmatism. Maintaining an appropriate standard of care and professionalism, however, does not imply or require that I actually respect his views. It only requires that I understand what is expected of me as a doctor; and as a doctor, my place is to treat him, and leave his personal opinions aside. No argument there.

 

 

Seneca

[Wolvenstar]

Hey guys, to be honest I just wanted to jump in and add my two cents to a small point, lol I haven't read the entire thread, but it is rather stimulating.

 

It has been my experience that euthanasia, is not as much of a religious issue in the main populace anymore, rather is a an uncomfortable reminder of mortality. Especially with the growing numbers of atheists in the populace, a strong movement to stay away from euthanasia, can not be based upon religion. Most people nowadays do not view death as being part of life, or nature. It is something that is just feared. Nobody accepts death as being inevitable anymore, rather they shy away from the subject because they don't feel comfortable speaking of the subject at all.

 

Indeed at my university we have had talks on both euthanasia and abortion (i mention abortion because euthanasia generally comes up in the abortion debates at my uni), and many of those opposed to euthanasia are very strigently opposed to any form of someone giving up on life.

 

Now don't get me wrong I don't believe that just anyone should be able to off themselves, however it is understandable to me when someone with a terminal condition, such as cancer, who has been told they have X number of days/months/years in which to live would rather die sooner rather than waste away usually in a painful fashion. In situations such as this, I believe it is the merciful thing to do to allow euthanasia. I would compare this to a deer that has been hit by a car and is dying slowly putting put out of it's pain. However many people I have met are blatantly shocked by both my willingness to accept euthanasia in these conditions and a person in such a condition wanting to forgoe the suffering and die sooner.

 

I believe that many people can not put themselves in the situation and mindset of such a person, and only look at the situation from the perspective of a loved one. Generally many family members will hang on to a dying relative as if the individual can somehow spite death. Many are too emotional to understand the suffering one will go through by dying slowly, and can not understand what a selfish thing it really is to force someone to live on for a short period of time - while suffering for most of it- just so that the relative/friend/lover can put off having to say goodbye.

 

Anyways I have always found this subject to be a stimulating topic to speak about, hopefully I don't throw the thread too off course.

[n00b]

this thread is DEFINITELY TL;DR

[youngdad]

this thread is DEFINITELY TL;DR

 

whats that?

[n00b]

too long; didn't read

[youngdad]

 

If you don't mind me asking, what religious framework do you approach these questions from?

 

Cheers,

 

 

Seneca

 

I am of the Mormon faith. It's posted earlier in the thread.

[AndrewB]

I find the apathetic and dismissive responses to this thread ridiculous. Religion and politics are some of the most important things to discuss and be well-versed in because they have the greatest effect, positive or negative, on people's lives. Dismissing the issues as unimportant is quite ignorant.

[Juicebox]

I am of the Mormon faith. It's posted earlier in the thread.

 

Oh yeah, got the clinical double-blind trials done on the positive effects of the magic underpants?

[Seneca]

I am of the Mormon faith. It's posted earlier in the thread.

 

Ah ok, cool. I must've missed it. Thanks.

[Wolvenstar]

I find the apathetic and dismissive responses to this thread ridiculous. Religion and politics are some of the most important things to discuss and be well-versed in because they have the greatest effect, positive or negative, on people's lives. Dismissing the issues as unimportant is quite ignorant.

 

Sadly enough I must agree with you. Really religion shouldn't have any sort of impact upon you in terms of medical decisions, but it does. It has always been my belief that religion should be a guide not a rulebook on life. It has always saddened me to see religious beliefs get in the way of life-saving treatments. While some follow their beliefs very rigidly, I have to ask if that is what their founders had in mind.

 

Politics are good topic for discussion and criticism. Although sometimes politics will get in the way of good medicine, it tends not to do it in the same manner as religion. Rather than affected the individual, it affects policy. I have always thought that medicine is important enough that it should determine it's own policy, (doctor's decided how medicare should work, what should be covered, how much money is needed for the health sector, how it should be distributed, etc) rather than politicians.

[alnew]

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4116/relig2.jpg

 

or, conversely:

 

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3497/bigbangtheoryx.jpg

 

[MedSchoolAhoy]

Ian Wong is my god.

________

buy herbalaire

[Ian Wong]

Hey all,

 

Threads on subjects like religion have an intrinsic tendency to raise emotions. Please keep things respectful.

 

Thanks!

 

Ian

[n00b]

Ian Wong is my god.

 

such a win post

[The Ace of Spades]

676 day thread revival!

[peter.jhony]

Regardless of what your religion is, how much know about your own religion? Do you think you are a model practising member? If not, are you willing to become a model member?

[xkittens]

I have a theory that religiousness and intelligence are inversely proportional, anyone with me?

[juice]

I'm an agnostic atheist, former Muslim (6+ years ago).

 

Islam tells muslims to kill anyone if they leave islam, you do know this? lol

 

(I saw it in a richard dawkins clip)

[medguy5367]

edited (10char)