On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:41:01 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
>the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
>supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
>often two different things.

With all due respect two points:
(1) For the most part nearly all Christians do reasonably well on the
morality front; however no question in this mass media era the rare
exceptions do get trumpeted (no pun intended) from the rafters. Plus a
lot of groups (ex the Branch Davidians and the Jim Jones Peoples'
Temple) get lumped into the 'Christian' category despite clearly being
light years from anything taught either by Jesus Christ or the early
church fathers.

Other faiths have similar issues (ask any North American Muslim how
they feel about al Qaeda and Islamic State) but at least in North
America and Europe there are fewer of them so don't get the press.
Similarly some of the ultra-Orthodox or Jewish Defence League types in
Judaism.

>Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
>behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
>understood for 2000 years.=20
>
>And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
>
>There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
>behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
>to do to justify your bad behavior.

Very true - I've been watching some Youtube videos recently on how
various Christian groups have evolved through the years everything
from the Crusaders to Garner Ted Armstrong or the Bethel church in
Redding, CA.

>You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
>philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
>claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
>might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
>exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".

No question in certain parts of the world atheistic systems have
earned the status of 'religion' particularly when state sponsored. I'm
not all that worried about countries with state churches like Britain
or Sweden as opposed to Iran and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

>> You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
>> philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
>> claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
>> might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
>> exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
>
> No question in certain parts of the world atheistic systems have
> earned the status of 'religion' particularly when state sponsored. I'm
> not all that worried about countries with state churches like Britain
> or Sweden as opposed to Iran and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
cannot build a modern society on its principles.

They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
in the moslem world.

As for state churhc, and in the spirit of public education, the swedish
state and the church went separate ways on the 1:st of january 2000.

That said, the swedish church is a joke and some of its priests don't
even dare to say if they believe in virgin birth or not when interviewed
in public.

So to me its a kind of modern, progressive sub-branch of the swedish
socialist party for socialists who enjoy spiritual conversations.

But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
will be gone in a few generations.

Now, does christianity have a future?

I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a
future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific
society.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:11:53 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>>> You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
>>> philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
>>> claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
>>> might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
>>> exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
>>
>> No question in certain parts of the world atheistic systems have
>> earned the status of 'religion' particularly when state sponsored. I'm
>> not all that worried about countries with state churches like Britain
>> or Sweden as opposed to Iran and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
>
>My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
>quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
>cannot build a modern society on its principles.
>
>They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
>in the moslem world.

They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.

>As for state churhc, and in the spirit of public education, the swedish
>state and the church went separate ways on the 1:st of january 2000.
>
>That said, the swedish church is a joke and some of its priests don't
>even dare to say if they believe in virgin birth or not when interviewed
>in public.
>
>So to me its a kind of modern, progressive sub-branch of the swedish
>socialist party for socialists who enjoy spiritual conversations.
>
>But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
>will be gone in a few generations.

I have no idea how realistic this is, but in the novel /The Girl with
the Dragon Tattoo/, it is Blomkvist's daughter who recognizes the
"phone number" as Biblical citations -- because she is a Christian.
And a young one. In Sweden.

This actually made it into the American film version, BTW. In the
Swedish original, of course, it is Lisbeth who figures it out.

>Now, does christianity have a future?

There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
around for a very long time.

>I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
>and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a
>future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific
>society.

Secularized science /itself/ is a religion if it performs the
functions of a religion. Religion is no more likely to wither away
than the State is.

Back when I was a subscriber to /Skeptical Inquirer/, just when they
were turning into an anti-religious fanaticism rag, the Editor (or
maybe Publisher), in his column, opined that "ethics could be based on
Science".

Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
say about, say, abortiion.

The next issue, he clarified his statement: he meant that, since most
skeptics were utilitarians, Science could be used to identify the
action that will promote the happiness of the greatest number. Which I
have no doubt it can, to some extent.

Utilitarianism, of course, has its problems -- those /not/ in the
greatest number are left to suck hind tit, as it were.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/18/2024 11:05 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:11:53 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>>> You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
>>>> philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
>>>> claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
>>>> might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
>>>> exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
>>>
>>> No question in certain parts of the world atheistic systems have
>>> earned the status of 'religion' particularly when state sponsored. I'm
>>> not all that worried about countries with state churches like Britain
>>> or Sweden as opposed to Iran and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
>>
>> My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
>> quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
>> cannot build a modern society on its principles.
>>
>> They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
>> in the moslem world.
>
> They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.

It's 1445 in the Moslem calendar. I've long observed that social
conditions in Moslem cultures are similar to 15th century European
ones.

pt

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>That said, the swedish church is a joke and some of its priests don't
>even dare to say if they believe in virgin birth or not when interviewed
>in public.
>
>So to me its a kind of modern, progressive sub-branch of the swedish
>socialist party for socialists who enjoy spiritual conversations.

They have absolutely the best coffee ever, though. They know what is
important.

Note that in the 19th century in England, the first son was expected
to inherit the title, the second son would be send to the army and
the third son would go into the church. Actual religious belief had
little to do with it.

Thus we have the Evelyn Waugh bit where a young man having a crisis of
faith asking the vicar if there really is a god, and the vicar replying,
"Oh, I never thought about that. That would be really terrible if there
weren't, wouldn't it?"
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

>> My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
>> quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
>> cannot build a modern society on its principles.
>>
>> They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
>> in the moslem world.
>
> They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.

True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
before they reach our level.

>> But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
>> will be gone in a few generations.
>
> I have no idea how realistic this is, but in the novel /The Girl with
> the Dragon Tattoo/, it is Blomkvist's daughter who recognizes the
> "phone number" as Biblical citations -- because she is a Christian.
> And a young one. In Sweden.

None of my friends are christian and at work I've met one. So I'd say
pretty rare if you ask me.

>> Now, does christianity have a future?
>
> There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
> around for a very long time.

In name yes, but as a vital force shaping peoples lives? I doubt it. I
know very few christians in europe. On paper of course they are, but
they have never visited a church and it doesn't factor into their lives
at all.

On the other hand, they could be hiding! The silicon valley episode with
the closet-christian comes to mind. ;)

>> I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
>> and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a
>> future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific
>> society.
>
> Secularized science /itself/ is a religion if it performs the
> functions of a religion. Religion is no more likely to wither away
> than the State is.

Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, but as the best method/process we have for
increasing our knowledge of the world.

> Back when I was a subscriber to /Skeptical Inquirer/, just when they
> were turning into an anti-religious fanaticism rag, the Editor (or
> maybe Publisher), in his column, opined that "ethics could be based on
> Science".

Jesus! ;) Ethics based on science? Clearly he didn't study much
philosophy. And before you dismiss me as a cold hearted scientist (which
I am not), let it be known that I do have a degree in philosophy and I completely
disagree with the science as ethics stance.

> Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
> suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
> say about, say, abortiion.

Good one!

> The next issue, he clarified his statement: he meant that, since most
> skeptics were utilitarians, Science could be used to identify the
> action that will promote the happiness of the greatest number. Which I
> have no doubt it can, to some extent.

Oh dear... life is not so clear cut in the halls of philosophy. ;)
Utilitarianism has its strong points and its weak points, as do virtue,
contracts, deontologists, natural rights etc.

But I do find the different theories valuable in focusing on different
aspects of a juicy ethical dilemma! =)

> Utilitarianism, of course, has its problems -- those /not/ in the
> greatest number are left to suck hind tit, as it were.

That's one. And another favourite is, in my opinion, that you cannot do
accounting across people, and that there's no standard of measurement,
and don't even think about mixing in the time axis!

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:41:12 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:35:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> >> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> >> >>> <rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
> >> >>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
> >> >>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
> >> >>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
> >> >>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
> >> >>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
> >> >>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
> >> >>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
> >> >>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
> >> >>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
> >> >>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
> >> >>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
> >> >>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
> >> >>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
> >> >>>> religion of money. But I don't think
> >> >>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
> >> >>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
> >> >>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
> >> >>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
> >> >>>> I heard that the current office holder
> >> >>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
> >> >>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
> >> >>>> something on these lines.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
> >> >>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
> >> >>>> interpretation of their holy book -
> >> >>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
> >> >>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
> >> >>>> either. If their god chooses not to
> >> >>>> write everything down, how can I object?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
> >> >>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
> >> >>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
> >> >>> entitled to do so.
> >> >>
> >> >> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
> >> >> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
> >> >> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
> >> >> religion was invented.
> >> >
> >> > No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
> >> > supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
> >> > years.
> >> >
> >> > That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
> >> > Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
> >> > about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
> >> > the state of the world.
> >> Who does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
> >> Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
> >> devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
> >> (though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
> >> second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
> >
> >All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the
> >name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.
> I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
> the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
> supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
> often two different things.
>
> Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
> behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
> understood for 2000 years.
>
> And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
>
> There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
> behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
> to do to justify your bad behavior.

Take for example the Albigensian crusade.

A common solder in that crusade is just following orders from his
lord. He'd do the same if the targets were fellow Catholics (as
indeed they mostly were).

His lord will mouth religious justifications for this crusade and might
even believe them. But he is mainly out for land and/or loot.

Innocent III, on the other hand, called for this crusade in the name of
Christ. The Cathars were no worldly threat to him or any of his
people. As he well knew.

>
> You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
> philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones.

There are ideologies held by people who happen to be atheists.

But few people commit a crime on behalf of the god that does not
exist.

Dictators attack or co-opt all other power structures in their
country. And this naturally will include churches, as possible
centres of opposition. But not because the dictator does
not believe in gods. Because he does not believe in
opposition.

In one of the mildest cases on record, the Landgrave of Hesse,
a protestant, declared that in his land the Host should be made
of the toughest possible bread, so that people would be
less prone to believe in transubstantiation (source is C. V.
Wedgwood's excellent "The Thirty Years War").

Few if any of the republicans in Spain in the 1930 were Protestant,
but in areas where Catholic churches were shut down, Protestant
ones were left open. As the latter had been banned until 1911,
they were not part of the power structure that opposed the
republic. Fellow sufferers, if anything.

Those
> claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
> might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
> exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".

Note the implication that atheists are "members" of some
organization, as, for example, Methodists are. This is
simply not the case. I am a "member" of the set of
Atheists in the same sense that I am a member of the
set of right-handed people.

I have no loyalty to the set of right-handed people. I get no
mail asking for contribution to right-handed causes. Without
shame I use my left hand to type, pick up garbage bins, wield
a fork, and so forth. Being right-handed is not a religion.

On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
>
>>> My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
>>> quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
>>> cannot build a modern society on its principles.
>>>
>>> They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
>>> in the moslem world.
>>
>> They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.
>
> True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
> me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
> before they reach our level.

Assuming this "we" and "our" refers to the Christian west, the USA has
murdered about 20 million in its defence since the end of WW2. Relax. It
will take decades or centuries for "the moslem world" to "reach our
level". Gott mit uns.

On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
> Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
> define science as a religion, snip

With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.

Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).

On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
> On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
>> Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
>> define science as a religion, snip
>
> With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
> contradiction could be a fact.
>
> Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
> religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
> for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
> whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
> proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
> Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
> community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
> their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).

Gravity was invented?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <uquls1$1n37a$2@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
>religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
>for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
>whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
>an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
>proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.

There are unfortunately people who treat science as a religion. It's not,
because religions claim to know all answers and science is only a method
to get closer to fundamental answers. But there are people out there who
behave that way, in the manner of cargo cultists.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2024-02-19, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> There are unfortunately people who treat science as a religion.

It is presented as such in American popular culture. Science is
just one dogmatic belief system among a myrid of others.

> science is only a method to get closer to fundamental answers.

Unfortunately, that is hardly conveyed by media and school.

Science teaching in school can also pervert this, with the common
practice of fiddling with experiments until they yield the expected
results.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> There are unfortunately people who treat science as a religion.
>
> It is presented as such in American popular culture. Science is
> just one dogmatic belief system among a myrid of others.

Scientism is an Anglo religious belief proselyted by Francis Bacon:

Practising scientists sometimes imagine that they are following
the 'Baconian empirical method'. It is doubtful whether any
successful scientist ever did so. Certainly Francis Bacon
himself was not a scientist but a lawyer, at one time Lord
Chancellor of England-and a man with [little] sympathy for the
work of the true great scientists of his age, of a Galileo, a
Harvey, or a Gilbert. But he was a man who wrote a great deal
about what science ought to do and he was a great phrasemaker,
a man who believed himself called upon to direct other men’s
scientific work and thereby to recognise scientific effort so as
to make it more beneficial to mankind.

<https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781138400122-8/francis-bacon-progenitor-scientism-1561–1626-1-bartley-stephen-kresge>

Francis Bacon also appears as a key historical figure in
_The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 22:09:42 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
>>> My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
>>> quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
>>> cannot build a modern society on its principles.
>>>
>>> They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
>>> in the moslem world.
>>
>> They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.
>
>True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
>me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
>before they reach our level.

Well, if you consider the Spanish Inquisition, I'd say they are well
on their way.

A lot of Muslims at least to belong to a religion of peace. Of course,
they interpret the commands to make war spiritually.

>>> But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
>>> will be gone in a few generations.
>>
>> I have no idea how realistic this is, but in the novel /The Girl with
>> the Dragon Tattoo/, it is Blomkvist's daughter who recognizes the
>> "phone number" as Biblical citations -- because she is a Christian.
>> And a young one. In Sweden.
>
>None of my friends are christian and at work I've met one. So I'd say
>pretty rare if you ask me.

But how many of your friends/colleagues are college students?

>>> Now, does christianity have a future?
>>
>> There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
>> around for a very long time.
>
>In name yes, but as a vital force shaping peoples lives? I doubt it. I
>know very few christians in europe. On paper of course they are, but
>they have never visited a church and it doesn't factor into their lives
>at all.

Who said anything about Europe? I said "world-wide".

Oh, and Verhoeven's /Spetters/ suggests that evangelism, in tents, in
still alive in Europe.

Using films as examples may not be entirely reliable; but if the
characters and actions were simply not credible because none existed,
what are they doing in films that are set firmly in secular reality?

>On the other hand, they could be hiding! The silicon valley episode with
>the closet-christian comes to mind. ;)
>
>>> I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
>>> and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a
>>> future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific
>>> society.
>>
>> Secularized science /itself/ is a religion if it performs the
>> functions of a religion. Religion is no more likely to wither away
>> than the State is.
>
>Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
>define science as a religion, but as the best method/process we have for
>increasing our knowledge of the world.

Apparently, you missed the "if".

I regard science as you do, but recognize that it, like anything else,
can be perverted into something else.

>> Back when I was a subscriber to /Skeptical Inquirer/, just when they
>> were turning into an anti-religious fanaticism rag, the Editor (or
>> maybe Publisher), in his column, opined that "ethics could be based on
>> Science".
>
>Jesus! ;) Ethics based on science? Clearly he didn't study much
>philosophy. And before you dismiss me as a cold hearted scientist (which
>I am not), let it be known that I do have a degree in philosophy and I completely
>disagree with the science as ethics stance.

It is, of course, true that Science has its own set of ethics. But
those aren't founded on Science, they exist to keep Science reliable.

>> Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
>> suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
>> say about, say, abortiion.
>
>Good one!

Thank you. I had a lot of fun thinking it up.

>> The next issue, he clarified his statement: he meant that, since most
>> skeptics were utilitarians, Science could be used to identify the
>> action that will promote the happiness of the greatest number. Which I
>> have no doubt it can, to some extent.
>
>Oh dear... life is not so clear cut in the halls of philosophy. ;)
>Utilitarianism has its strong points and its weak points, as do virtue,
>contracts, deontologists, natural rights etc.
>
>But I do find the different theories valuable in focusing on different
>aspects of a juicy ethical dilemma! =)
>
>> Utilitarianism, of course, has its problems -- those /not/ in the
>> greatest number are left to suck hind tit, as it were.
>
>That's one. And another favourite is, in my opinion, that you cannot do
>accounting across people, and that there's no standard of measurement,
>and don't even think about mixing in the time axis!

Ah, but that was the Editor's point -- that Science could be used to
help with at least some of these problems. That would, of course,
mostly be Social Science, not the harder forms.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 2:09:50 PM UTC-7, D wrote:
(quoting someone)

> > Back when I was a subscriber to /Skeptical Inquirer/, just when they
> > were turning into an anti-religious fanaticism rag, the Editor (or
> > maybe Publisher), in his column, opined that "ethics could be based on
> > Science".

> Jesus! ;) Ethics based on science? Clearly he didn't study much
> philosophy. And before you dismiss me as a cold hearted scientist (which
> I am not), let it be known that I do have a degree in philosophy and I completely
> disagree with the science as ethics stance.

Yes, while science can certainly _inform_ ethics, it can hardly be the
basis of ethics, as science describes what is, and ethics is about
what should be. The two are not necessarily related.

Replacing revealed religion as a basis for ethics, of course, remains a
very reasonable goal. But indeed, as you note, the type of reasoning
required will be philosophical in nature.

John Savard

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:36:17 +1300, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
>> Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
>> define science as a religion, snip
>
>With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
>contradiction could be a fact.
>
>Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
>religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
>for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
>whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
>an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
>proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.

And that's the nub of the problem: when science is treated as a
religion (and so, for those treating it that way, is a religion), it
is treated as Absolute Fact.

This is why, when Hobbits (Homo Floresiensis, if I remembered it right
this time) were discovered, one scientist insisted they must be
suffering from a medical condition, because their brains were too
small to be human. IOW, he took the studies of brain size vs cognitive
ability (showing a minimum size for human cognition) as Absolute Truth
instead of Scientific Hypothesis.

And I believe Wagner died despised by his fellow scientists, who
/knew/ that the continents could not move because that was an
Established Scientific Fact.

This is often regarded as a form of /reification/.

>Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
>community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
>their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).

Satire, I presume.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:08:56 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
>> On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
>>> Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
>>> define science as a religion, snip
>>
>> With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
>> contradiction could be a fact.
>>
>> Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
>> religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
>> for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
>> whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
>> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
>> proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
>> Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
>> community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
>> their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
>
>Gravity was invented?

Chicken bones were invented?

Fire was invented?

Now, the Franklin Stove, /that/ was invented. But fire?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
> >of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
> >(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
> >religion was invented.

> No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
> supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
> years.

Jesus is definitely recorded in the Gospels as preaching a high and
valid standard of morality. However, he didn't invent religion; Judaism
had been around for thousands of years by that time, for example.

And back when religion was what came from witch doctors, it was
already an instrument of tribal cohesion often used to justify
aggression against neighboring tribes.

John Savard

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:43:24 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:41:12?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:35:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> >> On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>> >> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> >> >>> <rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>> >> >>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>> >> >>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>> >> >>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>> >> >>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>> >> >>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>> >> >>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>> >> >>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>> >> >>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>> >> >>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ....
>> >> >>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>> >> >>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>> >> >>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>> >> >>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>> >> >>>> religion of money. But I don't think
>> >> >>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>> >> >>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
>> >> >>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>> >> >>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>> >> >>>> I heard that the current office holder
>> >> >>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>> >> >>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
>> >> >>>> something on these lines.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>> >> >>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>> >> >>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>> >> >>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>> >> >>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>> >> >>>> either. If their god chooses not to
>> >> >>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>> >> >>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>> >> >>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>> >> >>> entitled to do so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
>> >> >> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
>> >> >> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
>> >> >> religion was invented.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
>> >> > supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
>> >> > years.
>> >> >
>> >> > That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
>> >> > Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
>> >> > about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
>> >> > the state of the world.
>> >> Who does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
>> >> Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
>> >> devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
>> >> (though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
>> >> second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
>> >
>> >All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the
>> >name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.
>> I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
>> the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
>> supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
>> often two different things.
>>
>> Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
>> behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
>> understood for 2000 years.
>>
>> And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
>>
>> There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
>> behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
>> to do to justify your bad behavior.
>
>Take for example the Albigensian crusade.
>
>A common solder in that crusade is just following orders from his
>lord. He'd do the same if the targets were fellow Catholics (as
>indeed they mostly were).
>
>His lord will mouth religious justifications for this crusade and might
>even believe them. But he is mainly out for land and/or loot.
>
>Innocent III, on the other hand, called for this crusade in the name of
>Christ. The Cathars were no worldly threat to him or any of his
>people. As he well knew.
>
>
>>
>> You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
>> philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones.
>
>There are ideologies held by people who happen to be atheists.
>
>But few people commit a crime on behalf of the god that does not
>exist.

I can think of a few medical practitioners infamous for doing just
that -- unless you consider Science or Medicine a god.

>Dictators attack or co-opt all other power structures in their
>country. And this naturally will include churches, as possible
>centres of opposition. But not because the dictator does
>not believe in gods. Because he does not believe in
>opposition.
>
>In one of the mildest cases on record, the Landgrave of Hesse,
>a protestant, declared that in his land the Host should be made
>of the toughest possible bread, so that people would be
>less prone to believe in transubstantiation (source is C. V.
>Wedgwood's excellent "The Thirty Years War").
>
>Few if any of the republicans in Spain in the 1930 were Protestant,
>but in areas where Catholic churches were shut down, Protestant
>ones were left open. As the latter had been banned until 1911,
>they were not part of the power structure that opposed the
>republic. Fellow sufferers, if anything.
>
>
> Those
>> claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
>> might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
>> exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
>
>Note the implication that atheists are "members" of some
>organization, as, for example, Methodists are. This is
>simply not the case. I am a "member" of the set of
>Atheists in the same sense that I am a member of the
>set of right-handed people.
>
>I have no loyalty to the set of right-handed people. I get no
>mail asking for contribution to right-handed causes. Without
>shame I use my left hand to type, pick up garbage bins, wield
>a fork, and so forth. Being right-handed is not a religion.
>
>Atheism is lack of belief in gods. That's all. It is not a religion.
>No atheist speaks for me, nor do I obey any stricture offered by
>other atheists on the grounds of our mutual atheism. I would be
>prone to disobey, other things being equal.
>
>Those crimes were committed by atheists (well, mostly) but not in
>the name of atheism.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>A lot of Muslims at least to belong to a religion of peace. Of course,
>they interpret the commands to make war spiritually.

Yes. I lived for a while in Indonesia and Thailand which have peaceful
and tolerant Muslim populations.

The thing about religion is that it doesn't really change culture or people.
When good people become Christian, they become good Christians. When evil
people become Christian they don't stop being evil, they just become evil
Christians.

The same thing happens with other religions, which is how we get violent
Buddhists in Burma in spite of Gautama Buddha's best efforts to stop all
violence.

A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as
witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus
didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the
complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything
to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted
Islam.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>=46ire was invented?
>
>Now, the Franklin Stove, /that/ was invented. But fire?

Perhaps not fire, but the lighting of fires.

Patent 0: A Method For Creating Combustion By Use of Dry Wood And Friction
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <3g27ti5q6tae32n4avq55r7bf99ea41m2i@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:08:56 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>> On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
>>>> Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
>>>> define science as a religion, snip
>>>
>>> With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
>>> contradiction could be a fact.
>>>
>>> Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
>>> religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
>>> for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
>>> whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
>>> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
>>> proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
>>> Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
>>> community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
>>> their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
>>
>>Gravity was invented?
>
>Chicken bones were invented?
>
>Fire was invented?
>
>Now, the Franklin Stove, /that/ was invented. But fire?

The means by which fire can be deliberately created were invented, surely?

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>
>The means by which fire can be deliberately created were invented, surely?

And the day after Og invented it, Ug burned Ig's hut down with it.
That's why Ag created ITAR regulations for dual-use technologies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:43:24 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:41:12?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:35:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>>>>>>> <rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>>>>>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>>>>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>>>>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>>>>>>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>>>>>>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>>>>>>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>>>>>>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>>>>>>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>>>>>>>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>>>>>>>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>>>>>>>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>>>>>>>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>>>>>>>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>>>>>>>>> religion of money. But I don't think
>>>>>>>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>>>>>>>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
>>>>>>>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>>>>>>>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>>>>>>>>> I heard that the current office holder
>>>>>>>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>>>>>>>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
>>>>>>>>> something on these lines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>>>>>>>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>>>>>>>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>>>>>>>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>>>>>>>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>>>>>>>>> either. If their god chooses not to
>>>>>>>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>>>>>>>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>>>>>>>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>>>>>>>> entitled to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
>>>>>>> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
>>>>>>> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
>>>>>>> religion was invented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
>>>>>> supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
>>>>>> Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
>>>>>> about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
>>>>>> the state of the world.
>>>>> Who does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
>>>>> Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
>>>>> devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
>>>>> (though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
>>>>> second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
>>>>
>>>> All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the
>>>> name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.
>>> I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
>>> the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
>>> supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
>>> often two different things.
>>>
>>> Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
>>> behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
>>> understood for 2000 years.
>>>
>>> And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
>>>
>>> There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
>>> behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
>>> to do to justify your bad behavior.
>>
>> Take for example the Albigensian crusade.
>>
>> A common solder in that crusade is just following orders from his
>> lord. He'd do the same if the targets were fellow Catholics (as
>> indeed they mostly were).
>>
>> His lord will mouth religious justifications for this crusade and might
>> even believe them. But he is mainly out for land and/or loot.
>>
>> Innocent III, on the other hand, called for this crusade in the name of
>> Christ. The Cathars were no worldly threat to him or any of his
>> people. As he well knew.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
>>> philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones.
>>
>> There are ideologies held by people who happen to be atheists.
>>
>> But few people commit a crime on behalf of the god that does not
>> exist.
>
> I can think of a few medical practitioners infamous for doing just
> that -- unless you consider Science or Medicine a god.
>
>> Dictators attack or co-opt all other power structures in their
>> country. And this naturally will include churches, as possible
>> centres of opposition. But not because the dictator does
>> not believe in gods. Because he does not believe in
>> opposition.
>>
>> In one of the mildest cases on record, the Landgrave of Hesse,
>> a protestant, declared that in his land the Host should be made
>> of the toughest possible bread, so that people would be
>> less prone to believe in transubstantiation (source is C. V.
>> Wedgwood's excellent "The Thirty Years War").
>>
>> Few if any of the republicans in Spain in the 1930 were Protestant,
>> but in areas where Catholic churches were shut down, Protestant
>> ones were left open. As the latter had been banned until 1911,
>> they were not part of the power structure that opposed the
>> republic. Fellow sufferers, if anything.
>>
>>
>> Those
>>> claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
>>> might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
>>> exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
>>
>> Note the implication that atheists are "members" of some
>> organization, as, for example, Methodists are. This is
>> simply not the case. I am a "member" of the set of
>> Atheists in the same sense that I am a member of the
>> set of right-handed people.
>>
>> I have no loyalty to the set of right-handed people. I get no
>> mail asking for contribution to right-handed causes. Without
>> shame I use my left hand to type, pick up garbage bins, wield
>> a fork, and so forth. Being right-handed is not a religion.
>>
>> Atheism is lack of belief in gods. That's all. It is not a religion.
>> No atheist speaks for me, nor do I obey any stricture offered by
>> other atheists on the grounds of our mutual atheism. I would be
>> prone to disobey, other things being equal.
>>
>> Those crimes were committed by atheists (well, mostly) but not in
>> the name of atheism.
>
> And yet, in another usenet group a couple decades ago, I found
> atheists arranging funerals.
>
> Which is a function of religion.
>
> So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
> sort of thing religions do.

>> True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
>> me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
>> before they reach our level.
>
> Well, if you consider the Spanish Inquisition, I'd say they are well
> on their way.
>
> A lot of Muslims at least to belong to a religion of peace. Of course,
> they interpret the commands to make war spiritually.

A lot are not. In sweden, plenty of moslems were celebrating in the
streets after the massacre in israel, so I've personally never met any
moslem who seemed to be very much into peace.

I also look at moslem countries and to me the spiritually inclined are a
huge minority. Probably a sufi here and there.

>> None of my friends are christian and at work I've met one. So I'd say
>> pretty rare if you ask me.
>
> But how many of your friends/colleagues are college students?

100%.

>>> There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
>>> around for a very long time.
>>
>> In name yes, but as a vital force shaping peoples lives? I doubt it. I
>> know very few christians in europe. On paper of course they are, but
>> they have never visited a church and it doesn't factor into their lives
>> at all.
>
> Who said anything about Europe? I said "world-wide".
>
> Oh, and Verhoeven's /Spetters/ suggests that evangelism, in tents, in
> still alive in Europe.

Never met him, never seen myself.

>> Jesus! ;) Ethics based on science? Clearly he didn't study much
>> philosophy. And before you dismiss me as a cold hearted scientist (which
>> I am not), let it be known that I do have a degree in philosophy and I completely
>> disagree with the science as ethics stance.
>
> It is, of course, true that Science has its own set of ethics. But
> those aren't founded on Science, they exist to keep Science reliable.

I would argue that it collapses into the ethics of the person doing
science + the institution that finances it. As for reliability I am not
sure. That's a different axis. A lot of ethical discussions can actually
retard science, and wars have accelereated science. I think there is a
better word than reliable here, and that we are probably in agreement
overall.

>>> Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
>>> suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
>>> say about, say, abortiion.
>>
>> Good one!
>
> Thank you. I had a lot of fun thinking it up.

Give me more! ;)

>> That's one. And another favourite is, in my opinion, that you cannot do
>> accounting across people, and that there's no standard of measurement,
>> and don't even think about mixing in the time axis!
>
> Ah, but that was the Editor's point -- that Science could be used to
> help with at least some of these problems. That would, of course,
> mostly be Social Science, not the harder forms.

I don't know if I would consider social science a science based on how
it is done these days.