Talk:Religion
(→Science and religion) |
Armondikov (Talk | contribs) (→Science and religion) |
||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
We have all those "This discussion is going downhill" and "Godwin's Law alert" templates, but I'd like there to exist a "Thank you for the interesting and informative discussion" template that I could put to this thread. [[User:Editor_at_CP|Editor at CP]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>Oh, Finland! Why?</sup>]] 06:11, 27 November 2008 (EST) | We have all those "This discussion is going downhill" and "Godwin's Law alert" templates, but I'd like there to exist a "Thank you for the interesting and informative discussion" template that I could put to this thread. [[User:Editor_at_CP|Editor at CP]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>Oh, Finland! Why?</sup>]] 06:11, 27 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :Most certainly true. Most of the discussions are highly enlightening, which is why they're there. I certainly don't think this article needs to be ''anti'' religion. That would be more counterproductive than it's worth and it seems that the discussion has ended up with that conclusion fairly cleanly. I now know about the Conflict Thesis, which is useful to know. [[User:Armondikov|<font color=red face="Tahoma">'''''<font size=4>A</font>'''rmondiko'''<font size=4>V</font>'''''</font>]][[User_Talk:Armondikov|{{user:Armondikov/sigtalk}}]] 11:28, 27 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 16:28, 27 November 2008
Contents |
Disrespect
Redirecting Superstition to Religion is exactly that kind of idiocy that makes me disrespect RW almost as much as CP. Even your "liberal atheist" WP clearly distinguishes the two notions. This is not about refuting anti-science, this is simply the utter arrogance and disrespect of some who believe that there is nothing beyond science, towards those who seek answers in religion that science by definition cannot provide (e.g. the meaning or the purpose of our existence). If you believe that there is nothing beyond science, and that we're here "just because", fine. You don't need to share a belief to respect it. And I can very much understand opposing religious fundamentalists who deny the evidence and bend the truth to match their world view. But I find it simply disgusting how some people here drag all religious beliefs into the dirt (and this is just the most recent example I noticed). --87.8.235.16 16:19, 8 November 2007 (EST)
I believe that it was done as a joke (not by me) but what is religion if not superstition? Susan... purrrrrr ... 16:24, 8 November 2007 (EST)
"A belief, conception, act, or practice resulting from ignorance, unreasoning fear of the unknown or mysterious, morbid scrupulosity, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation" - if this is your opinion of religion, if have nothing more to say to you. (The quoted text is from Webster's definition of superstition.) --87.8.235.16 16:45, 8 November 2007 (EST)
I don't expect to hear from you again then. Susan... purrrrrr ... 17:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
- How about a one sentence article: "Religion is a superstition that requires your money." Would that make you happier? And, it's "causality", damn it. Every time I see "causation" it makes me want to be sick. --Jeeves 17:27, 8 November 2007 (EST)
- I wrote it differently - it now contains a bit that's respectful religion, and one veiled stab. Thoughts? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I don't understand it, at all. But I'm probably a touch dense. Susan... purrrrrr ... 17:42, 8 November 2007 (EST)
- Our IP chides us saying: You don't need to share a belief to respect it.. I've always been a bit confused by this idea. I don't share beliefs with homeopathy - but am I expected to respect it because some people have a sincere belief in it? Why?--Bobbing up 01:27, 9 November 2007 (EST)
- I'm inclined to agree, in part. While I think it a Good Thing to respect people who have beliefs I should not be expected to respect the beliefs themselves. This would show itself by my not thinking less of people who hold to beliefs that I may find silly. I should then expect the same courtesy by not being belittled by random people who hold strong views on certain untestable ideas. CЯacke® 01:51, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Rational Thinker's edit
Edit under debate is:Religious dogma is today the primary obstacle towards a fully rational society based on science. Religionists have a record of oppressing the greatest minds of humanity, from Galileo to Darwin, in order to push their nefarious and destructive world view.
I agree with it and would vote to put it back in. --Edgerunner76 10:48, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I have a problem with "Religionists have a record of oppressing the greatest minds of humanity, from Galileo to Darwin, in order to push their nefarious and destructive world view." - Many "religionists," are, after all, among the greatest minds of humanity; many religions - think Islam in the Medieval era - have a history of fostering intellectual pursuit and scientific and rational discovery; and many progressive social movements (civil rights, liberation theology) had strong roots in religion - bringing into question the blanket statement that all religion is a "nefarious and destructive world view."PFoster 10:55, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Religion is anti-rational by definition. Maybe in ancient times some scientits used to pose as religionists, becuase the oppressive power of the church was so great that they had no choice. A rational religionist is an oxymoron. Either you follow dogma, or you follow your logical mind. You can't do both. --Rational Thinker 11:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I see what you mean. However, I would like to see the edit put back if it were reworder to put a narrower context of more modern fundamentalism. Oh, and I loved that the size of your edit to this page was 666. That's kinda funny. :) --Edgerunner76 11:04, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- How about "Some religions have a record of..."? "While some religions have at times fostered rational explorations of our world," before it? human
11:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- How about "Some religions have a record of..."? "While some religions have at times fostered rational explorations of our world," before it? human
- Hey Rational - have a friend who's a scientit. Great job to have. about your dig at "ancient times" - what, history doesn't matter anymore? And the rest of that sentence barely makes sense: Are you trying to say that, in the example I gave of Islamic support of rational and scientific inquiry, people were claiming to be Muslims when they weren't? Do you have evidence for this? PFoster 11:08, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- C'mon, it's just a matter of rational thought (d'oh): religion says the magic man in the sky is doing it. Science says nature is doing it. One of them must be wrong. So if you do science, you contradict religion by definition. Thus, if you have a self-proclaimed religionist doing science, it's clear that he is faking it for his own benefit, or maybe to save his life (Galileo anyone?). Would you rather be burnt at the stake or say aloud "suuuuuuuuure I believe in Santa Claws!!!" Of course you can try to obfuscate this fact with clever wordisms, but that's how it is. --Rational Thinker 11:19, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- You're taking too narrow of a view of religion. They aren't all "man in the sky" religions. Anyway, we try to keep our "attacks" more focused - IOW, an article on Falwell or Robertson might call for some serious butt reaming, but one on religion in general has to keep in mind all religious movements. human
11:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- So which religious movements come without the "magic man in the sky" attached? Buddhism? Define "religion" properly, and Buddhism drops out anyway. What are we left with -- some minority lunatic sects waiting for some magic spaceship to rescue them, and more crap of that sort. Is that more rational than magic man? --Rational Thinker 11:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- It seems clear that religion which is based on faith cannot claim to be rational in the same way as science which is based on evidence.--Bobbing up 11:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- It's not just "clever wordism" - it's WHAT HAPPENED. Look, it would be an easy world to live in if everything were black-and-white, cut-and-dry, uncomplicated and straightforward. But the world isn't like that - it's complex and contradictory, and that's why your blanket statements are the antithesis of the "rationality" you so proudly attempt to embrace.PFoster 11:23, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- If we're going to to go with rationalism then that rather excludes religion.--Bobbing up 11:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- It's not just "clever wordism" - it's WHAT HAPPENED. Look, it would be an easy world to live in if everything were black-and-white, cut-and-dry, uncomplicated and straightforward. But the world isn't like that - it's complex and contradictory, and that's why your blanket statements are the antithesis of the "rationality" you so proudly attempt to embrace.PFoster 11:23, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I find this particularly ironic given RT's assertion that ALL religionists have ALWAYS decried ALL attempts at rationality. PFoster 11:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- He was excommunicated -- sort of proving my point, he was evidently not a loyal religionist. --Rational Thinker 11:40, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- "Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon, but his philosophy was never officially condemned." - also, he was excommunicated over questions of a theological nature, not over his work on logic or science. Nice try, kid. PFoster 12:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Wait wait wait, he was excommunicated over THEOLOGICAL stuff, and that makes him a true religionist? Huh? Logic, anyone? How about you accept the evidence: he was faking it, and he was bad at it, and that's why they kicked him out! Can it be more obvious than that??!! --Rational Thinker 12:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Having a dispute with church hierarchy does not mean that he didn't have faith or religion or accept the great majority of church dogma. I'm not arguing that the church is blameless, I'm arguing that religion - and not just the Catholic Church - has a relationship to rational and scientific inquiry that is more complex that your Manichean view of the question - and history bears out that I am right and you are wrong.PFoster 12:31, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Let's summarize: You dig out a guy who's been dead and buried for more than half a millennium (not so many good examples readily available, huh?). You notice that he had not completely given up religion -- heck, that was centuries before Galileo, they didn't have a clue back then! How could you expect them not to say "huh... well God did it" about all those things they didn't know yet?! And that's your example of the rational and scientific attitude of religionists? And then you top it off by calling my views Manichean... wow... just wow. --Rational Thinker 12:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Let's summarize: you try to sum up centuries of the histories of science, religion and philosophy into one snarky edit that bears no relation to the complexity of those histories, and try to tell me that I am "the rational and scientific attitude of religionists" when I've made it clear that all I'm trying to do is throw some of the complexity back into the mix, and YOU'RE the "rational" one? Goatspeed. PFoster 12:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- "Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon, but his philosophy was never officially condemned." - also, he was excommunicated over questions of a theological nature, not over his work on logic or science. Nice try, kid. PFoster 12:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- He was excommunicated -- sort of proving my point, he was evidently not a loyal religionist. --Rational Thinker 11:40, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- You're taking too narrow of a view of religion. They aren't all "man in the sky" religions. Anyway, we try to keep our "attacks" more focused - IOW, an article on Falwell or Robertson might call for some serious butt reaming, but one on religion in general has to keep in mind all religious movements. human
- C'mon, it's just a matter of rational thought (d'oh): religion says the magic man in the sky is doing it. Science says nature is doing it. One of them must be wrong. So if you do science, you contradict religion by definition. Thus, if you have a self-proclaimed religionist doing science, it's clear that he is faking it for his own benefit, or maybe to save his life (Galileo anyone?). Would you rather be burnt at the stake or say aloud "suuuuuuuuure I believe in Santa Claws!!!" Of course you can try to obfuscate this fact with clever wordisms, but that's how it is. --Rational Thinker 11:19, 22 January 2008 (EST)
back on topic
Suggested wording: "While some religions have at times fostered rational explorations of our world, others have a record of suppressing science in one form or another. Fundamentalist religious dogma and its opposition to rationalism is today the primary obstacle in the way of societies' advancing and improving through a strong emphasis on observation of real outcomes." human
12:14, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I for one remain unconvinced that A) fundamentalist dogma is anywhere near 'a', let alone 'the', primary obstacle to societal advancement; and B) that a society based exclusively on scientific rationality would be all that reasonable or appealing. Thinking of Hume's "servant of the passions" and all that. Also, User:Rational Thinker seriously needs to get a clue. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- OK, 'A' is debateable, and I almost went with "arguably one of". And in 'B', the science thing I axed, because it seemed 1984-creepy to me. That why I said "a strong emphasis on observation of real outcomes" - as opposed to faith-based attitudes. human
13:01, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I like Human's first sentence. But, while I have a negative view or religion and its impact, I have to concur that it's unlikely to be the fundamental obstacle in all societies. I'm not sure that Human's version says society would be better if were only based on science though. --Bobbing up 13:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- How about just simply adding something along the lines of religions taking a reactionary position as science began to attempt to answer questions for which the religions had already "answered"? --Edgerunner76 13:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- How about making it as specific as possible and pointing to specific incidences (like the YEC/evolution/ID fiasco) that names which religions, which religious figures, etc have attacked which elements of scientific inquiry in which ways without making inaccurate blanket assertions. I mean, this site is full of solid arguments like that anyways, right? PFoster 13:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- You mean a separate section something like "Religions failed attempts at science" or something like that?--Bobbing up 13:16, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Actually, the more I think about it, the more i think the best way would be to have a header like "Religion and Science" and under that, links to articles we alreqady have that discuss the questions raised above.PFoster 13:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I think that would be a good approach, yes. human
14:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I think that would be a good approach, yes. human
- Aye. Generally speaking, it would be a considerable improvement if people would phrase their criticisms as "[individual] or [organization] says..." instead or "Christianity says...". Christianity actually says very little, and the generalizations tend towards intellectual lazyness. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, some people here do take our mission as encouragement to go overboard with their "religion/CP/conservatism is teh evol" thing. We constantly have to rein each other in and keep things fair and balanced ;) human
14:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, some people here do take our mission as encouragement to go overboard with their "religion/CP/conservatism is teh evol" thing. We constantly have to rein each other in and keep things fair and balanced ;) human
- How about making it as specific as possible and pointing to specific incidences (like the YEC/evolution/ID fiasco) that names which religions, which religious figures, etc have attacked which elements of scientific inquiry in which ways without making inaccurate blanket assertions. I mean, this site is full of solid arguments like that anyways, right? PFoster 13:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- How about just simply adding something along the lines of religions taking a reactionary position as science began to attempt to answer questions for which the religions had already "answered"? --Edgerunner76 13:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I like Human's first sentence. But, while I have a negative view or religion and its impact, I have to concur that it's unlikely to be the fundamental obstacle in all societies. I'm not sure that Human's version says society would be better if were only based on science though. --Bobbing up 13:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- OK, 'A' is debateable, and I almost went with "arguably one of". And in 'B', the science thing I axed, because it seemed 1984-creepy to me. That why I said "a strong emphasis on observation of real outcomes" - as opposed to faith-based attitudes. human
'C'mon, it's just a matter of rational thought (d'oh): religion says the magic man in the sky is doing it. Science says nature is doing it. One of them must be wrong. So if you do science, you contradict religion by definition. Thus, if you have a self-proclaimed religionist doing science, it's clear that he is faking it for his own benefit, or maybe to save his life (Galileo anyone?). Would you rather be burnt at the stake or say aloud "suuuuuuuuure I believe in Santa Claws!!!" Of course you can try to obfuscate this fact with clever wordisms, but that's how it is. --Rational Thinker 11:19, 22 January 2008 (EST)'
Lulz, this is like a gallery of argumentative fallacies.
C'mon, it's just a matter of rational thought (d'oh): religion says the magic man in the sky is doing it.
Strawman.
- Depends on your definition of "religion". Maybe you're counting Buddhism, indeed they don't make such claims. Most others do, however.
- Uh, no they don't. Let's look at the Abrahamic religions for a start. I'm fairly sure that none of them claim that their God lives in the sky.
- Ugh, you like to take things literally, huh? Let's substitute "supernatural being" for "magic man in the sky". "Supernatural" meaning violating natural laws.
- Well, if you don't talk literally, then how do I know that your entire work isn't a subtle postmodern allegory against the slave trade? Also, see below, and/or read some stuff on the cosmological argument.
- Proof by verbosity? (Throw an entire book, or several, at your interlocutor.)
- If you refuse to debate in anything but strawmen, then I'm afraid that I must. At least read the wikipedia page, for Sparta's sake.
- Proof by verbosity? (Throw an entire book, or several, at your interlocutor.)
- Well, if you don't talk literally, then how do I know that your entire work isn't a subtle postmodern allegory against the slave trade? Also, see below, and/or read some stuff on the cosmological argument.
- Ugh, you like to take things literally, huh? Let's substitute "supernatural being" for "magic man in the sky". "Supernatural" meaning violating natural laws.
- Uh, no they don't. Let's look at the Abrahamic religions for a start. I'm fairly sure that none of them claim that their God lives in the sky.
Science says nature is doing it. One of them must be wrong.
False dichotomy.
- Nope, look it up -- doesn't apply here.
- Yes it does - you are arguing that the two are mutually exclusive. Many, many, many people have worked to show that they don't exclude each other.
- Supernatural beings and natural laws are mutually exclusive. Unless you assume natural laws to have exceptions, which is unscientific.
- Again, actually read a modern version of the C. Arg.
- idem
- idem too
- idem
- Again, actually read a modern version of the C. Arg.
- Supernatural beings and natural laws are mutually exclusive. Unless you assume natural laws to have exceptions, which is unscientific.
- Yes it does - you are arguing that the two are mutually exclusive. Many, many, many people have worked to show that they don't exclude each other.
So if you do science, you contradict religion by definition.
Thus, if you have a self-proclaimed religionist doing science, it's clear that he is faking it for his own benefit
Ad hominem
- Common sense, really. Why would a scientist embrace anti-science? --
- Common sense is the antithesis of sense. Use arguments to debunk stuff, not just vague appeals claiming that things are true 'because, well, everyone says they're true, don't they?', which is what common sense is
- Let me ask again: why would anyone embrace science and anti-science at the same time? The two things contradict each other. Thus either the person is crazy, or they have a non-intrinsic reason for it.
- I'll question the premise, if that's OK. You say that religion is some sort of 'anti-science', that, I duno, will spontaneously cancel out science and explode. This whole argument is circular - you're using a premise (that science and religion are mutually exclusive) to prove your conclusion (which is the same). Sure, you may see it as a self-evident fact, just as creationists see it as a fact that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Also, like your 'pro-life'-style 'anti-science'
- discussed above
- Uh, if you mean the discussion with PFoster, then I'm afraid that it was, to say the least, not convincing.
- discussed above
- I'll question the premise, if that's OK. You say that religion is some sort of 'anti-science', that, I duno, will spontaneously cancel out science and explode. This whole argument is circular - you're using a premise (that science and religion are mutually exclusive) to prove your conclusion (which is the same). Sure, you may see it as a self-evident fact, just as creationists see it as a fact that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Also, like your 'pro-life'-style 'anti-science'
- Let me ask again: why would anyone embrace science and anti-science at the same time? The two things contradict each other. Thus either the person is crazy, or they have a non-intrinsic reason for it.
- Common sense is the antithesis of sense. Use arguments to debunk stuff, not just vague appeals claiming that things are true 'because, well, everyone says they're true, don't they?', which is what common sense is
or maybe to save his life (Galileo anyone?). Would you rather be burnt at the stake or say aloud "suuuuuuuuure I believe in Santa Claws!!!"
Strawman, appeal to contempt.
- "appeal to contempt"??? what the ???
- Trying to link your opponent with an opinion that's obviously wrong; technically it's a straw man, but I thought you'd get tired of hearing that :p.
- are you taking "Santa Claws" literally or what? Replace as appropriate and try again.
- I'll discuss what you give me - otherwise, I could just have a conversation with myself.
- Seems you are a bit too fixated on your communication models to actually understand real life conversations...
- Ad hominem :). No, but this isn't a conversation - do you regularly refer people to 'conversations, idem'? No? That is because this is a debate. Stop equivocating and trying to dodge between precise language and vague allusion.
- Seems you are a bit too fixated on your communication models to actually understand real life conversations...
- I'll discuss what you give me - otherwise, I could just have a conversation with myself.
- are you taking "Santa Claws" literally or what? Replace as appropriate and try again.
- Trying to link your opponent with an opinion that's obviously wrong; technically it's a straw man, but I thought you'd get tired of hearing that :p.
Of course you can try to obfuscate this fact with clever wordisms, but that's how it is. --Rational Thinker 11:19, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Occupatio.
- Which is not even a fallacy.
- Rhetorical technique designed to conceal the lack of an argument with a semblance of already having won. Sure, it doesn't break the P1-PX C1 model, but then again, neither does ad hominem. Randomly calling people 'Hitler' isn't a fallacy, either, at least not logic-wise, but it's still just not done.
- "Hitler" is not a valid argument. Occupatio doesn't relate to the validity of the argument itself. --Rational Thinker 16:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- No, but having to resort to rhetorical techniques in place of arguments doesn't exactly speak well of them.
- Nitpicking on rhetorical figures isn't much of an argument (against my previous points) either. --Rational Thinker 16:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- At least it's valuable analysis - dismissing everything that comes after you as 'clever wordisms', but insisting that you're right anyway, doesn't exactly smack of rationality, balance, or weighing up both sides of an argument. Sounds a little more like something that those whom you would like to disagree with would say: 'I'm right, I know I'm right, and no matter what you say, I'll still know I'm right'.
- Nitpicking on rhetorical figures isn't much of an argument (against my previous points) either. --Rational Thinker 16:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- No, but having to resort to rhetorical techniques in place of arguments doesn't exactly speak well of them.
- "Hitler" is not a valid argument. Occupatio doesn't relate to the validity of the argument itself. --Rational Thinker 16:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Rhetorical technique designed to conceal the lack of an argument with a semblance of already having won. Sure, it doesn't break the P1-PX C1 model, but then again, neither does ad hominem. Randomly calling people 'Hitler' isn't a fallacy, either, at least not logic-wise, but it's still just not done.
Heh. Rational. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- Certainly no less than you. --Rational Thinker 15:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Pick out the 'irrational' points I made, and then we can address them. --
Religion and science
I started a section (and broke the main up into many sections), it needs to be fleshed out though. Especially with links to articles. human
14:20, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Science-friendly religion? Are you kidding me? So maybe they have noticed that refuting science makes them look quite dumb. But they haven't stopped spouting their bullshit about gods and devils and angels floating around and crap like that. If that bullshit were true, they should be able to prove it. Which they are not. See Dawkins. Religion is still anti-science, and now that we know that science can explain everything, it's time to finally phase out those old superstitions. --Rational Thinker 15:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- 'now that we know that science can explain everything' - wow, I didn't catch this news! Awesome! Can you show me a journal that allows me to read more about this? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- Wow, RT, that was quite the irrational splurge. Many religious traditions have been friendly and even supportive of science. Maybe as we improve the article you'll learn some new stuff? You know there are more religions than just the ones that believe in "gods and devils and angels", right? human
15:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Although RT may go a bit over the top on some stuff, the fact remains that the vast majority of religions fairly obviously believe in something supernatural.--Bobbing up 15:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- As I said, it's obviously a matter of terminology. If you take a very wide definition of "religion", including Buddhism, New Age and stuff like that, OK, they might be somewhat compatible with science. But they are not really "religions" in the strict sense. More apt descriptions range from "philosophy" to "lifestyle". I'm referring to religions in the strict sense, and those all feature some magic creatures floating around in heavens, or on Mount Olympus or whatever. That's irrational anti-science in its pure state, and it corrupts the rational mind. --Rational Thinker 15:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- As does the straw man fallacy, RT. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- You seem to like that word, and you seem to like to take things literally. Please substitute "supernatural being" for "magic creatures". Can you name a religion (in the strict sense) that does not include such ... huh ... things? --Rational Thinker 15:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- As does the straw man fallacy, RT. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- As I said, it's obviously a matter of terminology. If you take a very wide definition of "religion", including Buddhism, New Age and stuff like that, OK, they might be somewhat compatible with science. But they are not really "religions" in the strict sense. More apt descriptions range from "philosophy" to "lifestyle". I'm referring to religions in the strict sense, and those all feature some magic creatures floating around in heavens, or on Mount Olympus or whatever. That's irrational anti-science in its pure state, and it corrupts the rational mind. --Rational Thinker 15:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Although RT may go a bit over the top on some stuff, the fact remains that the vast majority of religions fairly obviously believe in something supernatural.--Bobbing up 15:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Wow, RT, that was quite the irrational splurge. Many religious traditions have been friendly and even supportive of science. Maybe as we improve the article you'll learn some new stuff? You know there are more religions than just the ones that believe in "gods and devils and angels", right? human
- 'now that we know that science can explain everything' - wow, I didn't catch this news! Awesome! Can you show me a journal that allows me to read more about this? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
I like that idea as much as you like using it, RT. If we are to have a proper debate, though, literal, non-vague language is usually a good start. As to your point, that religion includes 'supernatural beings', and so can't be real, because it's not science - what about, say, the God described by the in esse argument for God's existence? That idea's not a-scientific at all - doesn't break any of its laws, but is merely unproven. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- I'm not familiar with the in esse argument, but if god doesn't violate any natural laws, then it's just a useless hypothesis, because with or without him everything would happen in exactly the same way, namely according to natural laws. So we have a "god" floating around, but since he is not part of the physical world, he cannot do a damn thing in our world, for otherwise he would violate natural laws. It's just like assuming spacetime (in relativity theory) to have more than one connected component. It doesn't contradict science, but it's pointless, because the two (or more) components cannot interact in any way, so from our point of view they would effectively be inexistent. --Rational Thinker 16:19, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- A totally non-interventionist Deist God is difficult to disprove simply because of his non-intervention. However utter non-intervention would also make him utterly unimportant.--Bobbing up 16:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- ...making religion utterly pointless: how can a non-interventionist god dictate any laws or rules? He can't, so they're fake. Why would anyone pray to him? There is no possible interaction, i.e. he won't hear you and even if he could he couldn't do a thing for you. Thus the only scientifically possible god entirely defeats religion in the first place... now what? --Rational Thinker 16:40, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- A totally non-interventionist Deist God is difficult to disprove simply because of his non-intervention. However utter non-intervention would also make him utterly unimportant.--Bobbing up 16:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)
"now that we know that science can explain everything" is dogma, not fact. human
16:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Examples of science-friendly religion
Our article says: In the modern era, many Christian denominations accept fully modern science and its ramifications. Can we really substantiate this? Surely the ramifications of science would, at the very least, generate agnosticism?--Bobbing up 15:45, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Not really, since science does not disprove God. Oh, maybe it should say "some" rather than "many", but let me see. Example - C of E. Do they oppose science in any way? Episcopals (well, same church, kinda) - do they? I don't think the Congregational churches (UCC?) do, either. Heck, except for birth control research, the Catholics are fairly up-to-date these days. human
15:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- It depends on what god is being disproved. If we are talking about the miracle working God which some Christians believe in then yes science (or at least rational thinking) disproves him because of the absence of such miracles. With regard to the other churches, as far as I can tell, many of them hold to some sort of ID, guided evolution or Theistic Evolution. So at some level the majority would seem to be in conflict with science.--Bobbing up 15:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- TE is a broad church, if you'll pardon the pun, and, as believed by quite a few in the UK at least, is more like Theistic Abiogenesis. Also, there's a hueg debate about what actually constitutes a 'miracle' among theologians. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- OK, lots of people believe different things. But if we just take Theistic Abiogenesis and no more we still have a miraculous act followed - presumably - by god-guided evolution to reach mankind. That's at lest one miracle followed, presumably by various others, to reach the ultimate goal - mankind. It seems to me there's a contradiction with science there.--Bobbing up 16:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I don't see "guided evolution" as being anti-science. Just unprovable, and maybe un-disprovable. It fully accepts what science says happened and when, and usually accepts any science-proved causes for given mutations. Hence the NOMA ref.
- Guided evolution would need periodic unspecified miraculous interventions to reach a pre-determined goal. It is a long way from undirected natural selection which is as likely to produce dinosaurs as humans. It looks clearly unscientific to me.--Bobbing up 16:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Who is to say the goal (humans) was pre-determined? How about this sequence of events: God creates the universe, and establishes the natural laws, among them the rules of evolution that will eventually lead to one or more species achieving sentience. He sets the show in motion through the Big Bang, then kicks back to wait and see what happens. Once humans do get sentient, he gives them souls and divine inspiration and all that other stuff. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- An interesting possibility. Before I debate it, could you tell me if this belief is actually held by any religion?--Bobbing up 16:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- It is not inconsistent with most religions. Most Christians, Jews, and many others are non-dogmatic and adjust all but their core beliefs to be more in line with measurable reality (otherwise they wouldn't try to start an internal combustion engine).162.82.215.199 16:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- The consequence of your and AKjeldsen comments would seem to be that most religions would be happy about the idea of talking soul bearing dinosaurs. Who knows, dinosaurs might have evolved into intelligent beings, God would have given them souls and there would have been a dinosaur Jesus. And most religions would be happy with this addition to their doctrine? --Bobbing up 16:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I don't know if they'd be particularly happy with it (for some reason - personally I find the idea of a dinosaur Jesus awesome), but [liberal deceit] I can't find anything in at least what you could call the core Christian doctrines that would directly contradict such an interpretation. [/liberal deceit] --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- This, by the way, reminds me of a Sinfest... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I don't know if they'd be particularly happy with it (for some reason - personally I find the idea of a dinosaur Jesus awesome), but [liberal deceit] I can't find anything in at least what you could call the core Christian doctrines that would directly contradict such an interpretation. [/liberal deceit] --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- The consequence of your and AKjeldsen comments would seem to be that most religions would be happy about the idea of talking soul bearing dinosaurs. Who knows, dinosaurs might have evolved into intelligent beings, God would have given them souls and there would have been a dinosaur Jesus. And most religions would be happy with this addition to their doctrine? --Bobbing up 16:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- It is not inconsistent with most religions. Most Christians, Jews, and many others are non-dogmatic and adjust all but their core beliefs to be more in line with measurable reality (otherwise they wouldn't try to start an internal combustion engine).162.82.215.199 16:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- An interesting possibility. Before I debate it, could you tell me if this belief is actually held by any religion?--Bobbing up 16:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Who is to say the goal (humans) was pre-determined? How about this sequence of events: God creates the universe, and establishes the natural laws, among them the rules of evolution that will eventually lead to one or more species achieving sentience. He sets the show in motion through the Big Bang, then kicks back to wait and see what happens. Once humans do get sentient, he gives them souls and divine inspiration and all that other stuff. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Guided evolution would need periodic unspecified miraculous interventions to reach a pre-determined goal. It is a long way from undirected natural selection which is as likely to produce dinosaurs as humans. It looks clearly unscientific to me.--Bobbing up 16:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- I don't see "guided evolution" as being anti-science. Just unprovable, and maybe un-disprovable. It fully accepts what science says happened and when, and usually accepts any science-proved causes for given mutations. Hence the NOMA ref.
- OK, lots of people believe different things. But if we just take Theistic Abiogenesis and no more we still have a miraculous act followed - presumably - by god-guided evolution to reach mankind. That's at lest one miracle followed, presumably by various others, to reach the ultimate goal - mankind. It seems to me there's a contradiction with science there.--Bobbing up 16:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- TE is a broad church, if you'll pardon the pun, and, as believed by quite a few in the UK at least, is more like Theistic Abiogenesis. Also, there's a hueg debate about what actually constitutes a 'miracle' among theologians. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
- It depends on what god is being disproved. If we are talking about the miracle working God which some Christians believe in then yes science (or at least rational thinking) disproves him because of the absence of such miracles. With regard to the other churches, as far as I can tell, many of them hold to some sort of ID, guided evolution or Theistic Evolution. So at some level the majority would seem to be in conflict with science.--Bobbing up 15:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)
(undent) Hehehe, well, we did make a jealous god in our own image, didn't we? "We are your critters and you shall have no other critters before us!" human
17:06, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Maybe I should have used the idea of intelligent cockroaches. :-) Anyway, the thrust of AKjeldsen's argument would seem to be an attempt to reduce the number of miraculous interventions necessary and so make religion more science-friendly. It would allow evolution to be unguided and not make mankind its "objective". Notwithstanding comments in the above paragraphs I sincerely doubt that any major Abrahamic religion would accept this as doctrine. However he still has the creation of the universe, possibly Theistic Abiogenesis (Abiogenesis isn't evolution) the miraculous provision of souls - which presumably have some function unknown to science - and, from other comments, Jesus in some form. So there's still quite a bit of non-scientific miracle working going on in there.--Bobbing up 02:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Of course there is, religion more or less by definition involves something supernatural. But that's not really the question here as I see it - the question is rather whether or not those supernatural elements are able to exist in parallel with a physical world governed by measurable natural laws. Some people believe that they can co-exist, cf. NOMA, while others believe that they cannot, that everything must be absolutely measurable. To me, however, this latter position is quite obviously one dictated subjectively by one's personal philosophical standpoint, rather than objectively by science in itself. Science is defined especially by a particular method, by peer review, and by a shared set of standards, but not by any particular philosophy. For that reason, it seems to me that the not uncommon attempt by certain people to hitch the horse of science to the harness of logical positivism is slightly disingenious, or at least terribly misunderstood, and not entirely unlike the various shenanigans of their counterparts among the ID crowd. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- AKjeldsen, you are one of my favorite people on this site because you force me articulate my opinions. But in this instance, I seem to note a bit of ground shifting in your argument. Earlier in this thread you seemed to be trying to invent a miracle-free (or at lease miracle-reduced) religion in order to more easily square it with science. When that proves impossible, the idea that all religions need miracles is accepted - but our old friend the NOMA shield is brought up. Which really takes us back yet again to NOMA. I've mentioned before that this conversation-stopper seems to inevitably brought up when science seems to be coming too close to forcing a confrontation. But anyway we've danced around NOMA so often before that I don't presently have the will to pursue it. Or maybe we should re-ignite the NOMA debate page? :-) --Bobbing up 16:19, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Of course there is, religion more or less by definition involves something supernatural. But that's not really the question here as I see it - the question is rather whether or not those supernatural elements are able to exist in parallel with a physical world governed by measurable natural laws. Some people believe that they can co-exist, cf. NOMA, while others believe that they cannot, that everything must be absolutely measurable. To me, however, this latter position is quite obviously one dictated subjectively by one's personal philosophical standpoint, rather than objectively by science in itself. Science is defined especially by a particular method, by peer review, and by a shared set of standards, but not by any particular philosophy. For that reason, it seems to me that the not uncommon attempt by certain people to hitch the horse of science to the harness of logical positivism is slightly disingenious, or at least terribly misunderstood, and not entirely unlike the various shenanigans of their counterparts among the ID crowd. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Raptor jesus? 70.91.248.249 08:31, 23 January 2008 (EST)
As bad as the homeopathy article
As I suspected - as bad as the homeopathy article. When do you give equal time to the other point of view? — Unsigned, by: 217.172.33.60 / talk / contribs
- Start now; why don't you?
ContribsTalk 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Not to nit pick, but isn't the point of RW to sorta *not* give the other point of view? seems to me, that would be CP. No one lies, here, adn we don't dismiss truth when presented, but that doesn't mean we have to be fair and ballanced, or even "Fair and Ballanced (tm).--Waiting for Godot 17:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Science and religion
Religion is based on beliefs, science on scientific method. Religion is defined as an institution to express belief in a divine power, while science is defined as the collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. Since religious beliefs are not the outcome of any scientific analysis, the very concept of religion comes in conflict with science. I am not sure why citation is necessary for this statement, it is an elementary fact. --Thunder Machine 16:20, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- I think it's because you're dealing in absolutist terms that neglect the ways in which real living human beings have managed to reconcile faith and science. As well, how will you account for the very real ways in which religion often provided an environment for the advancement of scientific knowledge--such as in the case of the Islamic scholars of the Middle Ages. PFoster 16:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Nice try, Thunder, but no - it's not "an elementary fact", but rather an expression of the historical interpretational model known as the wp:conflict thesis, which dates back to the Victorians. As you will note from the WP article, it has fared badly among academics, but has unfortunately enjoyed a bit of a resurgence recently - probably because it fits rather nicely with the agendas of both extremes of the religion/science cultural war. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:34, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Though I personally believe religion as a whole has nothing to do with rationality because it is based on blind beliefs many of which originated as a result of human ignorance and lack of understanding of natural phenomena in ancient times, I have removed the statement. I was not aware of the Conflict thesis. Thunder Machine 16:58, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Isn't it obvious that science and religion are different beasts? Isn't it this what NOMA tries to fudge? Or is a different point being argued?--Bobbing up 16:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes, obviously science and religion are different. The question here is whether are they are naturally opposed and will inevitably come into conflict with one another. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:16, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Personally I would say that they are and that they will. One takes evidence as its basis and takes it from there - and the other takes faith and goes from there. There will be times when this takes them to different places. This will be generate conflict. For instance, one denies the existence of miracles and the other embraces it. I'd say that puts them in opposition.--Bobbing up 18:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Bob, that ignores what I pointed out above--people have, for centuries, found ways to reconcile religion and science. Not everyone with faith has no reason, is a young Earth creationist, or is ready to ascribe things that science can't explain to divine intervention. The world--and people--don't live in the kind of absolutes you describe. Religion and science can work together and coexist, because both are human creations and are thus able to be flexible, if people want them to be. PFoster 18:18, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, Bob, you are of course free to believe (geddit?) what you wish about these things, but the fact of the matter is that such an model has not been considered a valid interpretation the historical relationship between science and religion since at least the mid-20th century. The Wikipedia article I mentioned above lists some excellent books for further studies if you wish. Ferngren (ed): Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction (2002) is a good starting point. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:23, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- It's certainly true that science and religion can co-exist. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that in many instances that they do, in fact, co-exist. It is obvious that many (though by no means all) people seem to have no problem holding both scientific and religious ideas. Nevertheless, almost all religions depend, at some level, on the idea of miraculous acts - something which is alien and in conflict with scientific concepts.--Bobbing up 18:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- That remains the central question here. We have already established that science and religion are obviously different. But it is by no means certain that this difference means that they are in conflict with one another. Research shows that historically, this has not been the case - if anything, they have been complimentary. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:56, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- I think the above claim is a bit strong. "Historically" "they have been complementary"? How far back are we going, and where? ħuman
20:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- We can go as far back as we want to, even to the early Sumerians if necessary, but of course the tricky part is that neither "science" nor "religion" are fixed concepts in any way - our understanding of what exactly they signify change all the time along with the rest of society. I would say that it is only in the last 250 years or so that these concepts have been interpreteted in such a way that they can be seen as opposites. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 03:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I think the above claim is a bit strong. "Historically" "they have been complementary"? How far back are we going, and where? ħuman
- That remains the central question here. We have already established that science and religion are obviously different. But it is by no means certain that this difference means that they are in conflict with one another. Research shows that historically, this has not been the case - if anything, they have been complimentary. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:56, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- It's certainly true that science and religion can co-exist. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that in many instances that they do, in fact, co-exist. It is obvious that many (though by no means all) people seem to have no problem holding both scientific and religious ideas. Nevertheless, almost all religions depend, at some level, on the idea of miraculous acts - something which is alien and in conflict with scientific concepts.--Bobbing up 18:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Personally I would say that they are and that they will. One takes evidence as its basis and takes it from there - and the other takes faith and goes from there. There will be times when this takes them to different places. This will be generate conflict. For instance, one denies the existence of miracles and the other embraces it. I'd say that puts them in opposition.--Bobbing up 18:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes, obviously science and religion are different. The question here is whether are they are naturally opposed and will inevitably come into conflict with one another. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:16, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Isn't it obvious that science and religion are different beasts? Isn't it this what NOMA tries to fudge? Or is a different point being argued?--Bobbing up 16:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Though I personally believe religion as a whole has nothing to do with rationality because it is based on blind beliefs many of which originated as a result of human ignorance and lack of understanding of natural phenomena in ancient times, I have removed the statement. I was not aware of the Conflict thesis. Thunder Machine 16:58, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- Nice try, Thunder, but no - it's not "an elementary fact", but rather an expression of the historical interpretational model known as the wp:conflict thesis, which dates back to the Victorians. As you will note from the WP article, it has fared badly among academics, but has unfortunately enjoyed a bit of a resurgence recently - probably because it fits rather nicely with the agendas of both extremes of the religion/science cultural war. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:34, 26 November 2008 (EST)
I am sorry, I think you might not be exactly right. "Science" has a very specific meaning these days, which can perhaps be extrapolated back in time. "Religion" is a bit vague, of course, meaning many things to many people. However, AK, with all due respect, you are fucking wrong. Religionists in the USA today - NOW - are fighting science on religionist grounds. Which is not to smear all religiosy people everywhere, but it's a major fucking issue. Today. Which counts as "history", right? ħuman
03:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I think one could also claim, speaking about conflict between astrology and science: Research shows that historically, this has not been the case - if anything, they have been complimentary. Would this be some sort of justification for astrology?--Bobbing up 04:03, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Obviously, again until fairly recently, astrology was a science. And if it wasn't because the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians used astrology, they might not have bothered laying down the foundations of maths. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 04:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes, that is my point. You wrote: "We have already established that science and religion are obviously different. But it is by no means certain that this difference means that they are in conflict with one another. Research shows that historically, this has not been the case - if anything, they have been complimentary." I understood your claim about lack of historic conflict to mean that current conflict is not justified.
- My point is that one can also point to an historic lack of conflict between science and astrology. But this certainly does not mean that they are not in conflict now. Consequently an historic lack of conflict in no way implies the appropriateness of a current lack of conflict.--Bobbing up 04:33, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Perhaps, but that is a somewhat different discussion. Astrology is not a religion, it is a former science which has now been discredited. The conflict here is not between different types, as in the supposed one between science and religion, but rather over the definition of science and whether it can include astrology. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 04:48, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Nevertheless, your point (which I think you made several times) seemed to be about justifying a belief system based on the fact that it was historically held by reasonable people. And that people in the past had no problem reconciling one belief system with another. I think that my point shows that belief systems that were not historically in conflict do not necessarily have to continue in that state. (And when are you going to mention NOMA?) :-) --Bobbing up 04:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Alright, if that'll make you happy: NOMA presents a much better model for understanding the relationship between religion and science than the conflict thesis.
- Nevertheless, your point (which I think you made several times) seemed to be about justifying a belief system based on the fact that it was historically held by reasonable people. And that people in the past had no problem reconciling one belief system with another. I think that my point shows that belief systems that were not historically in conflict do not necessarily have to continue in that state. (And when are you going to mention NOMA?) :-) --Bobbing up 04:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Perhaps, but that is a somewhat different discussion. Astrology is not a religion, it is a former science which has now been discredited. The conflict here is not between different types, as in the supposed one between science and religion, but rather over the definition of science and whether it can include astrology. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 04:48, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Obviously, again until fairly recently, astrology was a science. And if it wasn't because the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians used astrology, they might not have bothered laying down the foundations of maths. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 04:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- With that over with, the thing is that adherents to the conflict thesis are very fond of asserting that this conflict exists, usually on the basis of certain things that supposedly characterises either of these ideal types. However, when it comes to actually demonstrating that such a conflict exists in reality, they tend to fall back on either supposed historical conflict (Galileo is always a favourite) or current events. My points about their historical relationship addresses the first point, and my answer to Human below the second. As it is, I'm still waiting to see hard evidence of this inevitable conflict. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, I was making the point that the lack of an historical conflict (and this for the sake of argument) does not automatically mean that there will not be a current conflict. I'm not sure if you have accepted this or not.
- Can you clarify your point about current conflict. When you say: I'm still waiting to see hard evidence of this inevitable conflict. Are you saying that you are waiting for hard evidence of the existence of some current conflict; or that you are waiting for evidence that any current conflict is inevitable? I guess its the latter but I'm not sure.--Bobbing up 05:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I was indeed think of the latter, but either one would be welcome, really. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 10:12, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- With that over with, the thing is that adherents to the conflict thesis are very fond of asserting that this conflict exists, usually on the basis of certain things that supposedly characterises either of these ideal types. However, when it comes to actually demonstrating that such a conflict exists in reality, they tend to fall back on either supposed historical conflict (Galileo is always a favourite) or current events. My points about their historical relationship addresses the first point, and my answer to Human below the second. As it is, I'm still waiting to see hard evidence of this inevitable conflict. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Human, you're really supersimplifying there. Of course it's an issue, but it's a complex political, social and cultural one that can't be reduced to a conflict between ideal types like "science" and "religion". What you guys are witnessing is a cultural struggle between at least four different groups (and even this will be a simplification, but for the sake of discussion). First, you have the right-wing religious fundamentalists who are actually opposed to science, for a variety of reasons, some of them religious and some of them not. At the other extreme, you have the anti-theist fundamentalists (or "Dawkinistas" as I believe the emerging term is), such as Myers, Hitchens, Harris, et al., whose agenda of trying to shape society in their image is just as strong as their opponents' is, don't be mistaken about that. Then we have the group of religious moderates, who for obvious reasons are in conflict with both of these extremes, and finally, I imagine there's a fairly large group of scientists (such as Lenski) who would just like to get on with their jobs without having to contend with either the religious fundamentalists or the Dawkinistas who want to use science for their own ideological purposes. And again, all of these groups are motivated by a wide range of factors, including religion, but also politics, philosophy, socio-economics and so on. do not work in absolutes. The actual situation is probably even more complex than this, but I'm sure you'll agree that we're already pretty far away from this silly science vs. religion interpretation. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 04:17, 27 November 2008 (EST)
We have all those "This discussion is going downhill" and "Godwin's Law alert" templates, but I'd like there to exist a "Thank you for the interesting and informative discussion" template that I could put to this thread. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:11, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Most certainly true. Most of the discussions are highly enlightening, which is why they're there. I certainly don't think this article needs to be anti religion. That would be more counterproductive than it's worth and it seems that the discussion has ended up with that conclusion fairly cleanly. I now know about the Conflict Thesis, which is useful to know. ArmondikoVbomination 11:28, 27 November 2008 (EST)