[aristotles]

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

Uh.... believing yourself to be part of the intellectual elite does not mean that you are intelligent. Perhaps the professor has never heard of "delusion of grandeur"?
delusion of grandeur - definition of delusion of grandeur in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

A delusion in which one believes oneself possessed of great importance, power, wealth, intellect, or ability.

Perhaps religious people might be more humble/down to earth and would have no need or interest in describing themselves to be part of the intellectual elite.

True intelligence is expressed in how one conducts oneself in everyday life.

I have little patience for snobbery and elitism of self described members of the intellectual elite who probably cannot even balance their own chequebook. PHD often stands for Pile (bullshit) Higher Doctorate.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

I read books on atheism, but this study is stupid.

Stupidity is not a cause of religious belief, or visa versa. They are just positively correlated variables.

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Huh, wut?

When two things occur together, it is a fallacy to assume a causal connection cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Here.

[Tiresias]

But perhaps it just needs to be noted that there are intelligent religious people and stupid atheists.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

and you seem to be saying the research shouldn't be allowed.

No, defended. I quite clearly said that those of you defending it should be ashamed.

That's just crazy, and I don't think you really believe it, which is why you have to come up with silly examples about research on who has the wettest backs. Let me put it this way: I can't think of an interesting or important area of study that shouldn't be allowed because the findings might offend some people.

I guess that's the issue then, I don't see how "are the religious stupider than atheists" fits your second sentence and not your first. It's not interesting, it's not important, it is silly. So is "are the religious happier than atheists." They're both silly. It's far too wide a categorization, and far too subjective an evaluation.

but this is a tabloid newspaper, so who knows what the context was.

They linked to a longer article in Times Higher Education, same content. Also a tabloid?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Made me think of this quote:

"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place." - Richard Dawkins

But you see, Dawkins is wrong.

Religion did not cause 9/11. It's too easy to do as Dawkins does, point the finger at religion for all the ills of history. The fact is that religion is often secondary to the real tensions and conflicts that drive so-called religious campaigns.

Take 9/11. The terrorists responsible felt they were defending cultural traditions that are actually more often tribal than Muslim and they were doing so in the face of increasing political and economic domination from the West. So as much as 9/11 was caused by religion, it was caused by culture, by economics, by good old-fashioned power struggles.

Nobody is more astounded than I that intelligent, serious people can go through their lives saying they believe in some very old books that purport to tell stories that took place a long time before said books were written but which nevertheless are adequate documentation to lead them to believe that there's some invisible being intimately involved in the unfolding of history and their individual lives. I mean, honestly...

But the simple truth is that plenty of smart people do believe this and that religion is not the cause of the world's woes. It's just mixed up in them like everything else.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Nobody is more astounded than I that intelligent, serious people can go through their lives saying they believe in some very old books that purport to tell stories that took place a long time before said books were written but which nevertheless are adequate documentation to lead them to believe that there's some invisible being intimately involved in the unfolding of history and their individual lives. I mean, honestly...

But the simple truth is that plenty of smart people do believe this and that religion is not the cause of the world's woes. It's just mixed up in them like everything else.

Very well put.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Nobody is more astounded than I that intelligent, serious people can go through their lives saying they believe in some very old books that purport to tell stories that took place a long time before said books were written but which nevertheless are adequate documentation to lead them to believe that there's some invisible being intimately involved in the unfolding of history and their individual lives. I mean, honestly...

It's really not all that astounding. There are a lot of very old books, telling of things that happened long ago which aim to explain the action of invisible forces that people use today. Darwin's "Origin of the Species" is one I can think of off the top of my head. When you refuse to see that the things in these books are found by readers to contain essential truths - even if other elements may appear to be a little off the mark due to the limited knowledge that the writers had in their day about certain scientific facts - you're engaging in short-sightedness.

To suggest that because you might not find the contents of said books compelling and relevant to your own daily perspective on life because you either can not see (or do not believe in) those truths, or don't experience great personal fulfillment by practicing or believing in what the books say is short-sighted as well, I believe.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But you see, Dawkins is wrong.

No he's not.

Religion did not cause 9/11. It's too easy to do as Dawkins does, point the finger at religion for all the ills of history.

Dawkins does not do that; he admits that evil has been done in the name of politics, nationalism, greed, etc. Communists, remember, were/are atheists.

Clearly you have not read The God Delusion.

Religion was not the sole cause of 9/11; but was the defining cause.

Take 9/11. The terrorists responsible felt they were defending cultural traditions that are actually more often tribal than Muslim and they were doing so in the face of increasing political and economic domination from the West. So as much as 9/11 was caused by religion, it was caused by culture, by economics, by good old-fashioned power struggles.

To say that human event A is caused by culture is like saying rain is caused by weather.

Economics? Rubbish, and you know it.

Power struggles, yes. Religious power struggles.

Nobody is more astounded than I that intelligent, serious people can go through their lives saying they believe in some very old books that purport to tell stories that took place a long time before said books were written but which nevertheless are adequate documentation to lead them to believe that there's some invisible being intimately involved in the unfolding of history and their individual lives. I mean, honestly...

Precisely.

But the simple truth is that plenty of smart people do believe this and that religion is not the cause of the world's woes.

That smart people are religious tells us nothing about religion's moral worth. Smart people design hydrogen bombs. Ted Bundy was smart. If I'm smart, and I rape and slaughter, is that okay?

It's just mixed up in them like everything else.

No one is claiming that religion is the only problem with this world.

Read The God Delusion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

No he's not.

Yes, he is. Much like the anti-gun crowd likes to find fault with handguns, anti-Theists take issue with the tool, instead of actually taking time to see where the fault truly lies. I know a cause can be emotionally engaging, but it's really time for them to open their eyes and quit ignoring the obvious.

Dawkins does not do that; he admits that evil has been done in the name of politics, nationalism, greed, etc. Communists, remember, were/are atheists.

Clearly you have not read The God Delusion.

Religion was not the sole cause of 9/11; but was the defining cause.

Greed was the defining cause, followed closely by cultural tampering (in the name of greed). As much as I think that the 9/11 attacks are indefensible and disgusting, the West made it's bed by facilitating the rape of that area's resources.

Religion is fine, or at most it's no worse than politics, but like any other structure it can be manipulated by anyone with enough leverage and guile. F**king over others (and being f**ked) is an unfortunate part of being human.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, he is. Much like the anti-gun crowd likes to find fault with handguns, anti-Theists take issue with the tool, instead of actually taking time to see where the fault truly lies. I know a cause can be emotionally engaging, but it's really time for them to open their eyes and quit ignoring the obvious.

Greed was the defining cause, followed closely by cultural tampering (in the name of greed). As much as I think that the 9/11 attacks are indefensible and disgusting, the West made it's bed by facilitating the rape of that area's resources.

Religion is fine, or at most it's no worse than politics, but like any other structure it can be manipulated by anyone with enough leverage and guile. F**king over others (and being f**ked) is an unfortunate part of being human.

I said that religion was the defining cause of 9/11. And if we subtract it, we still have a problem, but it is a very different problem. Whatever the incentive, religion provided the facilitating rationalization for what was done.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

I said that religion was the defining cause of 9/11. And if we subtract it, we still have a problem, but it is a very different problem. Whatever the incentive, religion provided the facilitating rationalization for what was done.

No, religion was an excuse (one of many). The desire for control and revenge was the cause.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, defended. I quite clearly said that those of you defending it should be ashamed.

I don't get it. How can you think something should be done but not defended?

I guess that's the issue then, I don't see how "are the religious stupider than atheists" fits your second sentence and not your first. It's not interesting, it's not important, it is silly. So is "are the religious happier than atheists." They're both silly. It's far too wide a categorization, and far too subjective an evaluation.

Why some people are religious and others not isn't interesting or important? How intelligence relates to belief isn't interesting or important? Wow, your standards must be so high that 99% of the research that is done would fail to meet them. Let's be honest: This research is politically incorrect, and that's what bothers you.

They linked to a longer article in Times Higher Education, same content. Also a tabloid?

Could be, I've never heard of it. I'll grant you that it's a sin for a researcher to speculate about his research, but I'd hardly call it a mortal sin. The real issue is that the findings are politically incorrect, in your view, and so it shouldn't be done (or maybe it just shouldn't be defended...). That's where we differ.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, religion was an excuse (one of many). The desire for control and revenge was the cause.

There are a lot of people who hate American foreign policy. But militant Islam provided the facilitating rationalization for a concerted and deliberate suicide attack on thousands of American civilians on 9/11.

If you don't understand that, all the quote-stacks in the world won't budge you out of whatever cave you are holed up in.

[OreoCookie]

@Tiresias
You're saying the same thing as Shaddim here: a rationalization is nothing but an excuse.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, religion was an excuse (one of many). The desire for control and revenge was the cause.

You mean religion is used to make smart people do stupid things?

Like kill themselves for virgins in heaven?

[hyteckit]

Most organized religion is about control. Take the Roman Catholic Church for example.

The Pope --> Archbishop --> Bishop --> Priest --> lowly followers

Why was the Church of England established? Control.

Religious people are easily controlled.

That's my research.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

If you don't understand that, all the quote-stacks in the world won't budge you out of whatever cave you are holed up in.

No need for that, we'll keep this civil.

There are a lot of people who hate American foreign policy. But militant Islam provided the facilitating rationalization for a concerted and deliberate suicide attack on thousands of American civilians on 9/11.

We've had many wars over the centuries without benefit of gods and goblins. All those countries had excuses, religion is just another. Islam didn't cause the current situation, but it's made a fine scapegoat for those who desire power.

[Starsixer]

Well not just control, but loads of money. I went to a Catholic school for 13 years and they always talked about how helping the needy was SO important and we should volunteer out time to help those in need and bla bla bla. Yet our tabernacle was made out of pure gold, as well as candle holders, chalices, and crucifixes. Our priest was given a Lincoln to drive, the church had state-of-the-art sound systems.... you know the whole nine yards. And wasn't the pope just quoted saying that people need to abstain from being greedy and surrounding themselves in material objects?

I mean you give these people your 'tithe' and they go off and build huge cathedrals and things made of solid gold. If the church were really about 'spreading the word of God' they would melt down a few tabernacles and pay for a few thousand villages in Africa to eat for a year.

The church hands down these messages and expects everyone to do what their preaching, and then keeps their billions of dollars for.... I don't know.... a rainy day? And not to mention they are the world's largest private land owner.

I agree hyteckit, its all about control, and in the case of the Catholic church, its also all about the Benjamins.

I have a question that I need answered truthfully. If you are Christian and you believe in creation, do you just ignore all evidence holding up evolution? And if you believe that Genesis was merely a story to be taken symbolically, explain the reasoning behind deciding which stories were symbolic and which stories were actual events.(i.e. Jesus)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't get it. How can you think something should be done but not defended?

Can be done. He can do whatever shoddy research he wants to do. I don't think he "should" or "shouldn't," I simply don't care. But I don't think other self-respecting 3rd parties should be holding that shoddy research up and defending it against wholly justified criticism.

Why some people are religious and others not isn't interesting or important?

This study doesn't even come close to addressing that. For you to even bring it up is exactly what's wrong with this study: you've fallen for the hype. Correlation doesn't show causality.

How intelligence relates to belief isn't interesting or important?

This study doesn't address that either.

Let's be honest: This research is politically incorrect, and that's what bothers you.

It wouldn't bother me if it was done well. There is a de facto higher standard of expectation for studies which are politically incorrect. I think that's rightly so. Science shouldn't feel entitled to trample people's beliefs with no regard for them at all. Basic research exists at the mercy of The People, let's not forget that; it's supported by a complicated system of begging for voluntary donations. I'm certainly not saying that scientists should misrepresent the truth just to win a grant, but I am saying they should exercise some basic tact and common sense. Just like every other facet of modern civilized society should.

Another thing that bothers me about this was well put in the first post on this page. Researchers are supposed to be removed from the experiment, and unbiased. You can hardly lay claim to that when you're starting with assumptions like "because the group I'm a member of is smarter than the population at large, ...yadda yadda yadda."

Could be, I've never heard of it. I'll grant you that it's a sin for a researcher to speculate about his research, but I'd hardly call it a mortal sin. The real issue is that the findings are politically incorrect, in your view, and so it shouldn't be done (or maybe it just shouldn't be defended...). That's where we differ.

No, the real issue is that the findings are self-serving and petty.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Most organized religion is about control. Take the Roman Catholic Church for example.

The Pope --> Archbishop --> Bishop --> Priest --> lowly followers

Why was the Church of England established? Control.

Religious people are easily controlled.

That's my research.

That's not totally fair. Yes, many religious leaders need to control their followers, but it very seldom is the faith itself that's to blame.

dogma: 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

religion: 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

In your opinion, which appears to be the more dangerous?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Starsixer 

Well not just control, but loads of money. I went to a Catholic school for 13 years and they always talked about how helping the needy was SO important and we should volunteer out time to help those in need and bla bla bla. Yet our tabernacle was made out of pure gold, as well as candle holders, chalices, and crucifixes. Our priest was given a Lincoln to drive, the church had state-of-the-art sound systems.... you know the whole nine yards. And wasn't the pope just quoted saying that people need to abstain from being greedy and surrounding themselves in material objects?

I mean you give these people your 'tithe' and they go off and build huge cathedrals and things made of solid gold. If the church were really about 'spreading the word of God' they would melt down a few tabernacles and pay for a few thousand villages in Africa to eat for a year.

The church hands down these messages and expects everyone to do what their preaching, and then keeps their billions of dollars for.... I don't know.... a rainy day? And not to mention they are the world's largest private land owner.

I agree hyteckit, its all about control, and in the case of the Catholic church, its also all about the Benjamins.

I have a question that I need answered truthfully. If you are Christian and you believe in creation, do you just ignore all evidence holding up evolution? And if you believe that Genesis was merely a story to be taken symbolically, explain the reasoning behind deciding which stories were symbolic and which stories were actual events.(i.e. Jesus)

There it is. Money (the lust for it).

For the rest of you, I suppose it isn't necessary to point out what Christianity and Islam define as the root of all evil, is it?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's not totally fair. Yes, many religious leaders need to control their followers, but it very seldom is the faith itself that's to blame.

dogma: 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

religion: 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

In your opinion, which appears to be the more dangerous?

Believing in supernatural powers or a creator of the universe in itself is not a religion.

Your definition of dogma is what religion is; A set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith.

Believing in supernatural powers and not following any doctrines of any church means you are spiritual, not religious.

You are mistaken spirituality for religion.

If you believe dogma is dangerous, then religion is as well.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There it is. Money (the lust for it).

For the rest of you, I suppose it isn't necessary to point out what Christianity and Islam define as the root of all evil, is it?

Yeah, so you as a follower or believer, can give your money to the church. Then the Pope can use that money to buy himself ipods and nice designer shoes.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's really not all that astounding. There are a lot of very old books, telling of things that happened long ago which aim to explain the action of invisible forces that people use today. Darwin's "Origin of the Species" is one I can think of off the top of my head. When you refuse to see that the things in these books are found by readers to contain essential truths - even if other elements may appear to be a little off the mark due to the limited knowledge that the writers had in their day about certain scientific facts - you're engaging in short-sightedness.

To suggest that because you might not find the contents of said books compelling and relevant to your own daily perspective on life because you either can not see (or do not believe in) those truths, or don't experience great personal fulfillment by practicing or believing in what the books say is short-sighted as well, I believe.

I must say, firstly, that comparing Origin of Species, a work of rigorous scientific discipline subjected to a critical community and which has served as the foundation of a branch of the biological sciences that has now survived and prospered under more than a century and a half of inquiry to a religious text like the New Testament many supporters of which claim is the inerrant word of God is like comparing apples to, well, glaciers.

Beyond that, I must ask what is it that I have said that bothers you? I'm unable to decipher it from your last sentence.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

No he's not.

Dawkins does not do that; he admits that evil has been done in the name of politics, nationalism, greed, etc. Communists, remember, were/are atheists.

Clearly you have not read The God Delusion.

Religion was not the sole cause of 9/11; but was the defining cause.

To say that human event A is caused by culture is like saying rain is caused by weather.

Economics? Rubbish, and you know it.

Power struggles, yes. Religious power struggles.

Precisely.

That smart people are religious tells us nothing about religion's moral worth. Smart people design hydrogen bombs. Ted Bundy was smart. If I'm smart, and I rape and slaughter, is that okay?

No one is claiming that religion is the only problem with this world.

Read The God Delusion.

Admittedly, I have not. I have read excerpts of it and found them to be spurious and ill-formed assaults on the faith of others. I saw no benefit in reading it. If I believed it was a worth-while pursuit to try to dislodge the beliefs of the faithful then I can think of a myriad better ways going about it than his. Frankly, my reading list is way too long. There are other Dawkins books on it, but this is one I see no value in. His central premise, I already accept. What I've seen of his methodology, I do not care for. What would be the point?

Why do you say that linking economics to 9/11 is rubbish?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Believing in supernatural powers or a creator of the universe in itself is not a religion.

Your definition of dogma is what religion is; A set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith.

Believing in supernatural powers and not following any doctrines of any church means you are spiritual, not religious.

You are mistaken spirituality for religion.

If you believe dogma is dangerous, then religion is as well.

Not hardly, and changing the definitions of words to suit you doesn't help this discussion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yeah, so you as a follower or believer, can give your money to the church. Then the Pope can use that money to buy himself ipods and nice designer shoes.

If that bothers a person, then they should evaluate which church they want to join. Clergy receive a salary and may purchase what they want from it.

Now, I'm not saying that churches are without fault, they have the potential to mishandle funds like any organization. But, they do quite a bit of good and are generally concerned with the best interests of others.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not hardly, and changing the definitions of words to suit you doesn't help this discussion.

Again, you are mistaken spirituality with religion.

You tell me. What is religion if it's not a set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I must say, firstly, that comparing Origin of Species, a work of rigorous scientific discipline subjected to a critical community and which has served as the foundation of a branch of the biological sciences that has now survived and prospered under more than a century and a half of inquiry to a religious text like the New Testament many supporters of which claim is the inerrant word of God is like comparing apples to, well, glaciers.

I wouldn't quite say it's like comparing apples to glaciers. There's been an enormous amount of study dedicated to Scripture which has served as the foundation of historiography, law, and philosophy and has now survived and prospered through not only its critical peers, but hostile scrutiny for more than 1900 years. Besides, a great many believe the word of science inerrant in complete misunderstanding of its methodology. Instead of God, they revere Consensus. They're actually quite similar.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Again, you are mistaken spirituality with religion.

You tell me. What is religion if it's not a set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith?

I'll try to redirect this back to the relevant here. If the religion says "thou shalt not steal" and you steal, are you acting on behalf of that religion? If your religion says you should turn the other cheek yet you bomb his house, are you doing so in reverence to the God of your faith?

I found your flow interesting;
The Pope --> Archbishop --> Bishop --> Priest --> lowly followers
I'm not sure many would regard JFK as "lowly" among others. I'll dismiss this breakdown as misinformation fueled by simple opposition to religion.

If it were Islam over tribal/cultural differences, why haven't the remaining 1.1 billion taken up arms against the rest of us?

[Uncle Skeleton]

People who "revere" science are only passingly familiar with it. Not familiar enough to ever track down a copy of "the Origin of Species" and actually read part of it. They would get all their information on the matter from gossip and rumors. "The Origin of Species" is still not analogous to scripture, because no one ever consults it for answers, or meaning; no one considers its literal words to be infallible. The only value anyone puts in it is its ability to accurately model the real world. If something in the real world was predicted by Darwin before it happened, that's when Darwin gets credit. That's not faith, that's the opposite of faith, because people depend on independent verification from experiments.

I was considering pointing out the same thing you did, though. It doesn't really matter how the book came to be, IMO, it only matters how it's treated now. Just because Darwin was peer reviewed (and I'm not even sure he was back then, at least not by today's standards), nothing says people in the future can't develop a real religion around the book he wrote. It's just that that's not what's happening today.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Greed was the defining cause, followed closely by cultural tampering (in the name of greed). As much as I think that the 9/11 attacks are indefensible and disgusting, the West made it's bed by facilitating the rape of that area's resources.

Bin Laden has told us why he organized the attacks: to drive the US from Saudi Arabia, and stop the US from supporting Israel. In other words: religious fanaticism. Not religion in itself, but a particular religious outlook involving religiously-motived political aims. You won't find moderate Muslims participating in suicide missions.

Originally Posted by Starsixer 

I mean you give these people your 'tithe' and they go off and build huge cathedrals and things made of solid gold. If the church were really about 'spreading the word of God' they would melt down a few tabernacles and pay for a few thousand villages in Africa to eat for a year.

The church could do that. It would feed a few people for a short while, and then it would be gone. Most of the Vatican's wealth is in art, which can be enjoyed by all visitors. If it was sold at top dollar, only private collectors would be able to enjoy it. Regarding the gold chalices, I suspect most such objects are low grade gold.

And if you believe that Genesis was merely a story to be taken symbolically, explain the reasoning behind deciding which stories were symbolic and which stories were actual events.(i.e. Jesus)

Researchers of Biblical history examine the Bible in the same way they examine any historical document, and hold it along side other disciplines for concurrent agreement. For instance the existence of Jesus is supported by the existence of his brother James, whom Josephus wrote about. Since the NT and Josephus agree on that fact (despite differing sources and agendas), it seems reasonable to conclude he did exist.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll try to redirect this back to the relevant here. If the religion says "thou shalt not steal" and you steal, are you acting on behalf of that religion? If your religion says you should turn the other cheek yet you bomb his house, are you doing so in reverence to the God of your faith?

So you agree that religion is a set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith. You just mention two doctrines:

Thou shalt not steal.
Turn the other cheek.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I found your flow interesting;
The Pope --> Archbishop --> Bishop --> Priest --> lowly followers
I'm not sure many would regard JFK as "lowly" among others. I'll dismiss this breakdown as misinformation fueled by simple opposition to religion.

If it were Islam over tribal/cultural differences, why haven't the remaining 1.1 billion taken up arms against the rest of us?

What? Who said anything about all Muslims wanting to kill us?

I said religion is use for control. Religion was use to get the 9/11 hijackers to commit suicide.

The Pope had as much power as the King back in the old days. Religion is use again and again to control its followers throughout history.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If that bothers a person, then they should evaluate which church they want to join. Clergy receive a salary and may purchase what they want from it.

Now, I'm not saying that churches are without fault, they have the potential to mishandle funds like any organization. But, they do quite a bit of good and are generally concerned with the best interests of others.

Yeah, religion is like a business. If your main business is recruiting more people to your religion, then it is in your best interest to reinvest in recruiting more people to your religion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Again, you are mistaken spirituality with religion.

You tell me. What is religion if it's not a set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith?

No, I'm adhering to the dictionary. Religion is the worship of a god or gods (or a group organized to worship), Dogma is a church-manufactured doctrine assigned to regulate such worship. There is religion without heinous dogma, and fortunately it isn't too difficult to find.

I don't blame you though, people have been mixing up religion, dogma, and spirituality for thousands of years.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, I'm adhering to the dictionary. Religion is the worship of a god or gods (or a group organized to worship), Dogma is a church-manufactured doctrine assigned to regulate such worship. There is religion without heinous dogma, and fortunately it isn't too difficult to find.

I don't blame you though, people have been mixing up religion, dogma, and spirituality for thousands of years.

I'm sorry, but religion is not the worship of a god or gods. Multiples religions can worship the same God. Some religions don't even have a God, such as Buddhism.

It's the set of beliefs and rituals that defines the religion. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, Hindu, and so forth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

A lot of people would say that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion

[hyteckit]

Religion

religion - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.


Dogma

dogma - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

1. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I must say, firstly, that comparing Origin of Species, a work of rigorous scientific discipline subjected to a critical community...

...which is hugely flawed in many ways, despite the truths which might be contained in it...just like the Bible (if looked at as a 100% factual document of history) which HAS been subjected to a critical community as well. My comparison is quite apt.

Beyond that, I must ask what is it that I have said that bothers you? I'm unable to decipher it from your last sentence.

That you would be astounded that people rely on "very old books, telling of things that happened long ago which aim to explain the action of invisible forces that people use today." It appears that's only the case if it's a book you don't agree with.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"The Origin of Species" is still not analogous to scripture, because no one ever consults it for answers, or meaning; no one considers its literal words to be infallible.

Are you sure? As I was reading above, I could swear it had more meaning for some than others. I think you're underestimating it's importance to some.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...which is hugely flawed in many ways, despite the truths which might be contained in it...just like the Bible (if looked at as a 100% factual document of history) which HAS been subjected to a critical community as well. My comparison is quite apt.

You are comparing fiction to non-fiction. Apples to oranges. Non-science to science.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

People who "revere" science are only passingly familiar with it. Not familiar enough to ever track down a copy of "the Origin of Species" and actually read part of it. They would get all their information on the matter from gossip and rumors. "The Origin of Species" is still not analogous to scripture, because no one ever consults it for answers, or meaning; no one considers its literal words to be infallible. The only value anyone puts in it is its ability to accurately model the real world. If something in the real world was predicted by Darwin before it happened, that's when Darwin gets credit. That's not faith, that's the opposite of faith, because people depend on independent verification from experiments.

To be clear, I understand what you're saying and appreciate the differences. I don't agree that it is comparing apples to glaciers.

I was considering pointing out the same thing you did, though. It doesn't really matter how the book came to be, IMO, it only matters how it's treated now. Just because Darwin was peer reviewed (and I'm not even sure he was back then, at least not by today's standards), nothing says people in the future can't develop a real religion around the book he wrote. It's just that that's not what's happening today.

Maybe not today, but I do believe people have sought "Origin of Species" for meaning in the past. I believe it enjoyed some power. I don't think people regard it as infallible, but some seem to enjoy toying with the idea that it is the anti-religion. To add to your point, the ideal gets used as a tool with little interest in the tool's qualities or purpose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I've never heard of anyone appealing to the book "the Origin of Species." I have heard people appeal to the general (large) body of evidence gathered as a result of that landmark publication. It's not really the same. It's like the difference between appealing to the text of the bible vs appealing to eye-witness or first-hand accounts of actual miracles.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So you agree that religion is a set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith. You just mention two doctrines:

Thou shalt not steal.
Turn the other cheek.

I have no problem accepting that religion is a set of beliefs and rituals relating to matters of morality and faith. These matters of morality and faith have served as very good guides to mankind throughout history in a host of ways. I'm trying to encourage some perspective as it seems all, but lost on many here.

What? Who said anything about all Muslims wanting to kill us?

Originally Posted by hyteckit

You mean religion is used to make smart people do stupid things? Like kill themselves for virgins in heaven?

Well... this is kind of disingenuous then. I'm left to assume you're using the most detestable action in an attempt to connect stupidity to religion. All? Of course not, but then you really didn't mention how to identify them. You can see how the indictment of "stupid" can lead to the indictment of "dangerous" right?

I said religion is use for control. Religion was use to get the 9/11 hijackers to commit suicide.

No. Oppressive governance is the reason for the degree of hopelessness required to fly a plane into a building of innocent people as an act of martyrdom. The only reason leaders mention "religion" is to calm the masses, but they're serving themselves. Most followers of (enter religion here) know it.

The Pope had as much power as the King back in the old days. Religion is use again and again to control its followers throughout history.

It has also been used to free its followers. We're saying the same things, but one is delivered with vitriol and seems to lack perspective IMO.

Greed transcends creed.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well... this is kind of disingenuous then. I'm left to assume you're using the most detestable action in an attempt to connect stupidity to religion. All? Of course not, but then you really didn't mention how to identify them. You can see how the indictment of "stupid" can lead to the indictment of "dangerous" right?

No, I said religion is use to make smart people do dumb things like killing innocent people in the name of religion. Smart people do dumb things in the name of love. Smart people do dumb things in the name of religion.

People kill themselves, cut off their ears, and kill innocent people in the name of love. Do I think everyone in Love is stupid? No. Do I think Love can make smart people do dumb things? Yes.

People kill themselves, cut off their ears, and kill innocent people in the name of religion. Do I think everyone who belongs to a religion is stupid? No. Do I think religion can make smart people do dumb things? Yes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Religion

religion - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.


Dogma

dogma - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

1. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Exactly, dogma is far more suspect. Religion is fine.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm sorry, but religion is not the worship of a god or gods. Multiples religions can worship the same God. Some religions don't even have a God, such as Buddhism.

Which flavor of Buddhism? It's rather diverse.

Yes, the worship or reverence of just about anything can be labeled a religion. Hell, some of the fanatical atheists on this forum are more religious than many of the Christians.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...which is hugely flawed in many ways, despite the truths which might be contained in it...just like the Bible (if looked at as a 100% factual document of history) which HAS been subjected to a critical community as well. My comparison is quite apt.

That you would be astounded that people rely on "very old books, telling of things that happened long ago which aim to explain the action of invisible forces that people use today." It appears that's only the case if it's a book you don't agree with.

Are you sure? As I was reading above, I could swear it had more meaning for some than others. I think you're underestimating it's importance to some.

The Bible is not even factually consistent with itself, much less with independent accounts of history. I'm not sure what flaws you think are contained in The Origin of Species, but it hardly matters as it is you who is overestimating its importance. It was a seminal text in the advent of the theory of evolution by natural selection, but it was published 150 years ago. It's hardly relevant to the body of scientific evidence that documents the very VISIBLE process of natural selection.

So the question remains, why do you care what astounds me?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Exactly, dogma is far more suspect. Religion is fine.

What the hell are you talking about? Religion is based on dogma.

Religion: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Dogma: A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wouldn't quite say it's like comparing apples to glaciers. There's been an enormous amount of study dedicated to Scripture which has served as the foundation of historiography, law, and philosophy and has now survived and prospered through not only its critical peers, but hostile scrutiny for more than 1900 years. Besides, a great many believe the word of science inerrant in complete misunderstanding of its methodology. Instead of God, they revere Consensus. They're actually quite similar.

I'm sorry, ebuddy, but in science theories "survive" by passing empirical tests. Whatever "hostility" Christianity has survived for the last 1900 years it has largely survived through inquisition and repression of those who do not believe.

I'm afraid glaciers and apples it is.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Which flavor of Buddhism? It's rather diverse.

Yes, the worship or reverence of just about anything can be labeled a religion. Hell, some of the fanatical atheists on this forum are more religious than many of the Christians.

Atheism isn't a religion. Atheist don't have a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I think you are confused with dogma, religion, and spirituality.