How much Science will it take to kill religion?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Another good point. I think the decline in religion in the modern West has as much if not more to do with rising standards of living than with increasing scientific knowledge (though, of course, the former is a direct result of the latter). If you think of what the life of a typical preindustrial peasant was like it's no surprise that they'd grab religion like a drowning man grabs a life vest. If your life isn't pretty much guarenteed to be nasty, brutish, and short the idea of sacrificing your happiness now for a promised paradise after death becomes less attractive. If you don't have to worry about a famine if your crops fail the idea that you need to appease some invisible being that controls the weather loses its force. If you can take antibiotics to cure a potentially fatal infection you stop furiously begging God to have mercy on you and let you live because that's not your last desperate hope anymore.

While you're right that prosperity can make people unfaithful, I think you're glossing over one or two important things.

Firstly, religions that have an after-life or re-incarnation allow people to feel that there is a true sense of justice. That when a rich man kicks a beggar in a foreign country, then goes home and makes another million and enjoys a 'happy', hedonistic lifestyle he will still get his just desserts in the after-life where full justice will be completed. This belief extends to make people comfortable with natural disasters, 'untimely' deaths, and tragedy - that somehow God has a plan for it and that God loves them and will make it all better, or that their station in the next life will be improved on account of their peaceful perseverance in the face of the odds in this life.

Secondly, in many cases, religion gives people a sense of purpose and direction. Seeking pleasure and joy in materialistic things, seeking wealth for the sake of getting wealthy, often leave people feeling hollow. I can't say that it's objectively-provably the case - hence 'often' as opposed to 'always' - but I know from my own personal experience that I feel that way, and from what I've been told by people I met that they feel that way. For such people, religion offers them a sense of direction, and since the existence of God is inherently non-provable and non-dis-provable, as long as they maintain that faith they leave themselves feeling good.

Horribly out of context as it may be, the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses" comes to mind. Opium does make you feel pretty good; and if it doesn't simultaneously cause you to suffer in a worldly sense (like Buddhism did to the Chinese people) then it's better than opium. Give them material prosperity, and still you'll find people seeking the next high - religion.

-AHMAD

[Wedge]

I don't think that science kills religion, maybe it helps to have critical thinking, but they are/were good scientist that still believe/d in God. It's like with racism, some intellectuals in Germany believed in the white supremacy and supported nazism. Intelligence is not the important factor to kill religion or stupid ideas, even if it does help.

I believe that in order to eradicate religion, you need to know why people believe in it in the first place.

From what I have read, all big modern religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism) have one thing in common.

A sense of universal justice, like BountyHunterSAx said it. If you do something wrong to someone, wrong will come to you, in this life or the next. It's the traditional balance, yin-yang, karma or whatever you want to call it.

I think the only way to replace this need to believe in something bigger that brings balance, is to have this justice while you are alive. For that to work society would have to be almost utopian. But my hopes are high that humankind will find the way to a sustainable society, because it's either that or our extinction.

For me the second main reason why people believe in religions is the fear of death, and the question what will happen once you die, will your consciousness be gone forever?
Like Stas Bush pointed out, immortality could do the trick. Or a considerable larger lifespan, like say 300 years? If you reach that kind of technology that would allow people to live that long or being immortal, we would actually have become "gods" ourselves, and I think this technology would be only applicable once there is a sustainable society.

Now to the third big issue of religions, for many people they fill their lack of purpose in life. After all, why live in the first place?
I think this is a battle that has to be fought by everyone for him/herself, find your sense of purpose, this is actually the only argument that I think can't be argued logically. But maybe a little soft "brainwashing" would help? Like for example teach children to do their best to better humankind? Repeat it through their whole life?

Now for more immediate help:
1.- Stop giving feelings such importance, it's not the priority.
Why do I think this has to do something? Because outside of this board when you criticize someone for being stupid all the other people will defend him. You can't criticize stupid behavior, because people will say that they have the right to their own opinion and beliefs, like that would justify believing in illogical things without being criticized.

2.- Actually take time to explain people most of the things and confront them with evidence.
I do believe that most are so lazy, they prefer to affirm things they hear than actually think about them. I am convinced that if you would explain to most people how the things they believe in actually work, most would change. For example if people would know how Homeopathy or Astrology are supposed to work, they wouldn't believe in them. Same goes with the origin of Christian Bible or Koran.

3.- Get rid of traditions or sacred cows.
For example, that Judaism hasn't changed for over 2000 years isn't something to be proud of. Or for example saying that Indian ancient medicine is better then modern medicine because it's 5000 year old is NOT logical !! Why should it be? Oh yes because back then they had contact with the Goa'uld. Something being old, doesn't make it better or right. That also goes for constitutions (let's see if you get the hint ).

[Junghalli]

<snip>

Oh yes, certainly material prosperity alone will probably not destroy religion. I'm merely saying that it tends to weaken it.

[BountyHunterSAx]

1.- *SNIP* You can't criticize stupid behavior, because people will say that they have the right to their own opinion and beliefs, like that would justify believing in illogical things without being criticized.

I agree with what you're saying, but not necessarily what you mean. Acting illogically is stupid, yes. That said, if someone believes something, and you respect their right to believe something, then how can you criticize them for following through on that belief? It is NOT illogical for them to act on their belief, provided that it does not fly in the face of fact.

For example, if someone believes there are invisible carnivorous monsters under his bed. And that these monsters will appear and eat him if and only if he ever looks under for them, it is not illogical for him to avoid looking under the bed whilst he keeps his belief as premises. And if you respect that person's right to hold his own beliefs, then you shouldn't criticize him for following his beliefs to their rational conclusions. While it's certainly not objectively provable it certainly is true to the individual.

2.- *SNIP* Same goes with the origin of Christian Bible or Koran.

See, I'm living proof that at least one person, fully aware of the way in which the Qur'an came to be, is still convinced of its veracity. And of the original way the Bible came to be, for that matter. If I'm able to believe there's an ENTIRE invisible world around us, and that there's an omnipotent, omniscient Lord who created us and tests us and judges our actions; if I'm further able to believe that this same eternal Lord communicated with men called 'messengers' then why should it bother me at ALL to believe that the Qur'an might have been inspired to the Prophet(S) by a process that appeared to most as epileptic fits? Why should it phase me when I'm told that there was a point where the text started getting distorted, copies were burned and tested against the original compilation? Why should I take it amiss that the oral tradition was the original means of transmission ; after all, oral-tradition back then was much stronger than now.
My point being, at least in several cases (though certainly not all, I'm not going to elevate my personal example and commit a false-generalization) faith can overcome doubt.

3.- Get rid of traditions or sacred cows.
For example, that Judaism hasn't changed for over 2000 years isn't something to be proud of. Or for example saying that Indian ancient medicine is better then modern medicine because it's 5000 year old is NOT logical !!

Sacred cows and traditions are frequently religious rites and rituals. If you believe that people should have the right to believe-without-proof in ANY SINGLE THING, then you ought to be okay with people believing in a religion. If they believe in a religion; then they are logically justified in following its rites and rituals, plain and simple.

The examples you gave don't speak to rites and rituals though; and so I think it's quite likely I just missed your point here. If I did, please clarify.


-AHMAD

[Patrick Degan]

See, I'm living proof that at least one person, fully aware of the way in which the Qur'an came to be, is still convinced of its veracity. And of the original way the Bible came to be, for that matter. If I'm able to believe there's an ENTIRE invisible world around us, and that there's an omnipotent, omniscient Lord who created us and tests us and judges our actions; if I'm further able to believe that this same eternal Lord communicated with men called 'messengers' then why should it bother me at ALL to believe that the Qur'an might have been inspired to the Prophet(S) by a process that appeared to most as epileptic fits? Why should it phase me when I'm told that there was a point where the text started getting distorted, copies were burned and tested against the original compilation? Why should I take it amiss that the oral tradition was the original means of transmission ; after all, oral-tradition back then was much stronger than now.

My point being, at least in several cases (though certainly not all, I'm not going to elevate my personal example and commit a false-generalization) faith can overcome doubt.

It should phase any reasoning person because there is exactly zero evidentiary support for any of these views.

[BountyHunterSAx]

SNIP
My point being, at least in several cases (though certainly not all, I'm not going to elevate my personal example and commit a false-generalization) faith can overcome doubt.

It should phase any reasoning person because there is exactly zero evidentiary support for any of these views.

Certainly zero evidence to support IF you restrict evidence to that which can be seen, touched, heard, smelt, tasted, etc. I find myself just as cognizant of another sense; and it is that sense which has allowed me a so-called 'spiritual experience.' You've doubtlessly heard someone yammering at some point about how they've "felt Jesus". Well, I agree that to ask other people to accept that as evidence is stupid in the extreme. But it doesn't DEFY the evidence of your other senses; and if you trust that feeling - if you accept that evidence, there's nothing wrong with your reasoning for following it through to its conclusions. It appears as faith to others; to yourself it's fact.

It's just that plenty of religious types can't seem to accept that their evidence is subjective, and as a result they try to insist that others ought to share their view; and that their views should be taught in schools. I agree that at THAT point they've crossed the line. Subjective evidence that cannot be shared, or cannot be reproduced, should not be used as evidence to convince others. Following it yourself and making conclusions based off of it; that seems perfectly logical and rational. A 'reasoning mind' might very well do just that.

-AHMAD

[Darth Wong]

It's just that plenty of religious types can't seem to accept that their evidence is subjective, and as a result they try to insist that others ought to share their view; and that their views should be taught in schools. I agree that at THAT point they've crossed the line. Subjective evidence that cannot be shared, or cannot be reproduced, should not be used as evidence to convince others. Following it yourself and making conclusions based off of it; that seems perfectly logical and rational. A 'reasoning mind' might very well do just that.

-AHMAD

While your approach is superior to that of the average fundie zealot, what you just said is akin to saying that if you hear voices in your head, it is "perfectly logical and rational" to do what they say.

[BountyHunterSAx]

It's just that plenty of religious types can't seem to accept that their evidence is subjective, and as a result they try to insist that others ought to share their view; and that their views should be taught in schools. I agree that at THAT point they've crossed the line. Subjective evidence that cannot be shared, or cannot be reproduced, should not be used as evidence to convince others. Following it yourself and making conclusions based off of it; that seems perfectly logical and rational. A 'reasoning mind' might very well do just that.

-AHMAD

While your approach is superior to that of the average fundie zealot, what you just said is akin to saying that if you hear voices in your head, it is "perfectly logical and rational" to do what they say.

Heh; it does sound pretty stupid when you put it like that. And - on account of just that fact - I'd give zero credit to someone else's argument that based itself on the premise of what the voices-in-head (or God) said to do if they tried to use it to convince me.

Still, if I hear the same voice, it tells me something; what solid reason do I have to disbelieve it? Particularly when the things that the voice told me did not irrefutably contradict the evidence of my other senses. I trust my other senses well enough, and unless there's some factor messing with or clouding them they feed me valid information. If you've ever seen Ghostwriter, it's the same approach the kids use - believe in the voice, but don't tell other people to do so since they'd probably just think you're crazy.

If you ever catch me building or supporting an argument on the basis of the 'evidence' that I pull from the voice, or trying to refute observable evidence on the basis of the voice, then yes; the label of 'stupid' and 'illogical' and 'irrational' would apply. Further, even if it doesn't contradict observable evidence and I believe a subjective data-source that only I can hear, then objectively I'm being irrational, but not subjectively. In other words, yes - I agree with your analysis; and I still don't see how it is a problem.

-AHMAD

PS: I think I'm straying from the main topic; should I start a separate thread about this?

[Patrick Degan]

SNIP
My point being, at least in several cases (though certainly not all, I'm not going to elevate my personal example and commit a false-generalization) faith can overcome doubt.

It should phase any reasoning person because there is exactly zero evidentiary support for any of these views.

Certainly zero evidence to support IF you restrict evidence to that which can be seen, touched, heard, smelt, tasted, etc.

Which happen to be the only measures that count.

I find myself just as cognizant of another sense; and it is that sense which has allowed me a so-called 'spiritual experience.'

In other words, "let's pretend".

You've doubtlessly heard someone yammering at some point about how they've "felt Jesus". Well, I agree that to ask other people to accept that as evidence is stupid in the extreme. But it doesn't DEFY the evidence of your other senses; and if you trust that feeling - if you accept that evidence, there's nothing wrong with your reasoning for following it through to its conclusions. It appears as faith to others; to yourself it's fact.

In other words, "let's pretend".

It's just that plenty of religious types can't seem to accept that their evidence is subjective, and as a result they try to insist that others ought to share their view; and that their views should be taught in schools. I agree that at THAT point they've crossed the line. Subjective evidence that cannot be shared, or cannot be reproduced, should not be used as evidence to convince others. Following it yourself and making conclusions based off of it; that seems perfectly logical and rational. A 'reasoning mind' might very well do just that.

In other words, "let's pretend".

[ray245]

Unless science can create a way for us to change the human behavouir....in regards to our fear of death...

I don't think science can kill religion..

[Wedge]

*SNIP*And if you respect that person's right to hold his own beliefs, then you shouldn't criticize him for following his beliefs to their rational conclusions. While it's certainly not objectively provable it certainly is true to the individual.

I respect that a person has the right to his own beliefs, and what I mean by that is: That I won't try to force that person to quit his beliefs, even if I think they are stupid. I won't impose my view or commit violence against that person just because of their beliefs.
BUT, I almost consider it my duty, to criticize beliefs that I think are stupid or wrong. That doesn't mean I don't respect their right to have a belief.

To put it simple: Respect for the RIGHT to belief, not for the belief itself.

*SNIP* See, I'm living proof that at least one person, fully aware of the way in which the Qur'an came to be, is still convinced of its veracity.

Do you actually think, that the copy you have of the Qur'an is what your God wanted? That he dictated every word of it and Mohamed was his secretary writing everything down, every point and coma just like God wanted to? That the language hasn't changed in more then a milenia and everything still means the same as it did back then? Do you think God guided it so it won't get corrupted until now, so that YOU can have a copy in your house? Or do you leave a small window of opportunity of human error in the centuries that have passed?

*SNIP* My point being, at least in several cases (though certainly not all, I'm not going to elevate my personal example and commit a false-generalization) faith can overcome doubt.

Do actually think this is a good thing? My biggest dream is that LOGIC can overcome FAITH.

*SNIP*
The examples you gave don't speak to rites and rituals though; and so I think it's quite likely I just missed your point here. If I did, please clarify.

I think I didn't express myself good enough, my fault sorry. I will try to clarify.
A lot of people think that "traditions" are good just for being traditions, for being things that are "old" or "ancient" and therefore somehow better, maybe that is also why people say "the good old days". The past is always treated better than the present. Religion has a lot of tradition, not only in societies but also in families and so on.
That's why I think that getting rid or criticizing traditions (that are bad; there is nothing wrong with "family-Sunday-supper-tradition"), will help eradicate religion. Even in science things become traditions, and people have to fight it. For example when scientist said that Pluto wasn't considered a planet anymore, not like Mars. It got a lot of "fuck that Pluto was always a planet" even from me, because it was getting a tradition.
As for sacred cows, if society kills them and we are used to that, people will be more likely to question faith-Dogmas. The sacred cows of religion.

Pleas don't get offended by my questions, as I am interested in your answer.

[Starglider]

Still, if I hear the same voice, it tells me something; what solid reason do I have to disbelieve it?

You have a huge amount of evidence supporting the fact that the human brain is highly falible and prone to spurious perceptions and self-suggestion. You have ample scientific proof that your thoughts are nothing more than just neural activation patterns. Virtually every moment of your waking life you experience thoughts coming into your consciousness that you can't trace the origin of. The hypothesis that these perceptions come from wishful thinking and an overactive imagination which you failed to recognise as such is so many orders of magnitude more plausible than invisible magic sky pixies beaming revelations directly into your brain that you are frankly a disgrace to rational thought if you even bother to consider the later as a viable explanation.

Particularly when the things that the voice told me did not irrefutably contradict the evidence of my other senses.

This happens all the time to other people though. Severe cases end up in asylums, slightly more moderate cases make a good living as fundamentalist preachers. You just got lucky.

[Darth Hoth]

How would the view that education, intelligence, and wealth all breed atheism explain a guy I know? He is white, upper middle class, IQ scores approaching genious level. He has atheist parents and went to a non-confessional school; I do not think he was ever in church, if you do not count museums. He left high school with excellent grades and went on to college.

And in spite of it all he is still approaching fundie levels of blind faith (in Christianity).

Is he just the exception that proves the rule, or...?

[Junghalli]

There are a lot of ways I can think of that religion might become attractive to somebody like that for emotional reasons. Heck, I went through a religious conservative phase as basically pure teenage rebellion (my parents were liberals and I lived in Berkeley CA, so spouting theocon rhetoric was basically the best way to get them all to gasp with horror).

Education undermines religion because it encourages rational thought. Wealth undermines religion because it tends to go hand in hand with education and reduces the emotional stresses that make appealing to sky pixies attractive. But neither is a guarenteed "vaccine" against it.

[Darth Hoth]

Just wondering. He seems really sincere about it, and I've known him for quite a while. He is not a bad person, either... just a little preachy sometimes.

[Wedge]

Is he just the exception that proves the rule, or...?

Or...he is a CIA experiment without knowing it, they are bombarding a part of his brain with magnetic fields so that he gets a religious epiphany.

[Darth Hoth]

No, that's not it either. He never has "visions" or such (I specifically asked, and he said, "No."). If you bait him, he just goes on about the fact that the Bible is right because the Bible says so.

He analyses everything else scientifically and meticulously (down to making fun of mainstream media inaccuracies). He always demands proof when others make claims, and supports his own accordingly. Except in this one particular instance. And he openly admits he has no other reason to believe in it - than that he does believe in it.

Add to that the fact that he is completely normal in all other respects.

[BountyHunterSAx]

*SNIP*And if you respect that person's right to hold his own beliefs, then you shouldn't criticize him for following his beliefs to their rational conclusions. While it's certainly not objectively provable it certainly is true to the individual.

I respect that a person has the right to his own beliefs, and what I mean by that is: That I won't try to force that person to quit his beliefs, even if I think they are stupid. I won't impose my view or commit violence against that person just because of their beliefs.
BUT, I almost consider it my duty, to criticize beliefs that I think are stupid or wrong. That doesn't mean I don't respect their right to have a belief.

To put it simple: Respect for the RIGHT to belief, not for the belief itself.

Fair enough; my mistake was jumping to the conclusion that you were objecting to their end-result action as being stupid and not simultaneously calling them stupid for having a belief. Rather you're calling both stupid, but acknowledging a person's right to have them both. Objectively, I'd agree with you on that; and my point was that you can't criticize one without the other.

*SNIP* See, I'm living proof that at least one person, fully aware of the way in which the Qur'an came to be, is still convinced of its veracity.

*SNIP* (addition mine: 'are you sure')

Let me answer each question one by one just to be on the safe side. I probably will phrase some of my answers on the 'assumption' that Islam is true; sorry - hard to get around my own personal beliefs and come across objectively. Still, you're asking if I, personally, believe it, and so I suppose that is just even more of an honest answer then, eh?

Do you actually think, that the copy you have of the Qur'an is what your God wanted?

I believe that the copy I have is word-for-word identical to the 'copy' that God revealed. I do not believe that the Qur'an EVER was to be interpreted 100% literally. And I base this 'disbelief' on the fact that the Qur'an includes a verse that specifically states some verses are 'muhkamaat' and others are 'mutashaabihaat'. Without delving too deeply into translation and arabic word-roots, this verse is saying some verses are 'clear' in meaning and others require interpretation/are not. If you were analyzing the Qur'an literally, you'd have to conclude you were doing it wrong; hence my belief that it's a mix. So the direct answer would be 'yes' this is exactly the copy that God wanted.

That he dictated every word of it and Mohamed was his secretary writing everything down, every point and coma just like God wanted to?

Commas and Points were added much later on, as a convention for easier reading. So technically they're 'bid'a' and not really part of the actual script. That said, the full-stops could be viewed as analogs of pauses, and hence be validated; details on that I'm skimpy on.

As for the bulk of the text,

Oral tradition was strong back then. People would memorize everything, and memorizing their lineage, literally volumes of quotes from people they heard, etc. was common. Further, writing was not common at the time. Being a scribe was a special position and Muhammad (S) was actually illiterate.

When Muhammad (S) would receive revelation, it would happen in one of two ways. One way is that archangel Gabriel would come to him and actually say it, as God had ordered, and he would memorize it and then share it with others, who in turn would memorize it on the spot and share it, etc. etc. The other was that he would have what appeared to be an epileptic fit, and would say the verses on the spot; which people would memorize and others would write. I emphasize that others (scribes) would write because that becomes relevant later on, because these 'scraps' were also used as validation when compiling the first full written manuscript.

I'm not going to finish the whole story, because I want to point out the importance of memorization. The Qur'an - similar in its manner to works of poetry (though calling it such is not quite accurate) - is somewhat easy to memorize. Children as young as four years old are able to memorize it still today in its entirety. If you see zealots now, how much more 'zealous' would the companions be back at the time of the Prophet in memorizing its every word? How many independent reciters - each 'happening' to have memorized the same document would it take to verify its authenticity? Unless there was a colossal conspiracy to falsify it, that is. Till today there is only one surviving 'version' of the Qur'an. There is - granted - a bit of debate on that subject, as some Muslims argue over whether a certain verse or two begin or end in a slightly different place in the first Surah; but no debate - to my knowledge - exists over the rest of the content.

And as a final reason for belief: to my mind, belief in God is a larger quandary than belief in the Qur'an. More accurately - if I believe in an omnipotent yet stays-out-of-things God; then why should I doubt His ability to preserve His word?

That the language hasn't changed in more then a milenia and everything still means the same as it did back then?

Actually, that I know is indeed the case. But you brought up two separate issues in that post so I'll address them both. First- the language shift. The dialectical changes have weakened the purity of the Arabic language. "Fusahaah" arabic - the original - the type the Qur'an is written in; is still used for official papers and such in Saudi Arabia. But for normal communication; there is about as many slang forms of arabic and dialectical pronunciation differences as there are countries in the arab world (okay, i'm exaggerating here). That's why around the Uthmani Khalifate (~20-30 years after the prophet's passing) the added punctuation marks were put in the Qur'an to preserve the original sound of each word. This was done with a counsel of 80 plus people who each had the Qur'an memorized and were drawn from different places; and it was left for ANYONE who claimed to have the Qur'an memorized to inspect. Thence the addition of dialectical marks - equated to the 'commas and points' you mentioned earlier.

As far as do I believe the language has changed such that words said back then no longer mean what they do now; I certainly believe that is the case. I would not advocate taking "He saw the sun setting in murky water" to mean that he saw the sun moving out of the sky and then entering a pond somewhere here on earth. Nor would I literally interpret 'God's hand' as some sort of divine fist sitting out there. I'm against purely-literalistic interpretation of the Qur'an. There's an entire science for how the Qur'an can be interpreted with regards to its asbaab-un-nuzool, its abrogations, etc.

Do you think God guided it so it won't get corrupted until now, so that YOU can have a copy in your house?

I believe in God's ability to do this; and I see no incentive for Him NOT to preserve His word. To judge people for their success or failure in obeying His commands and following Him; and then to simultaneously provide them an erroneous holy book.....well I at least feel that would be unjust.

Or do you leave a small window of opportunity of human error in the centuries that have passed?

If by that you mean 'do i belive there has been a window of opportunity in which human error could have occurred'? Sure I do. But things don't 'magically' forget themselves. Human error is different from intentional corruption; which would be more likely. If each person had a huge chance of being wrong on each individual word, and there were 80 people who each claimed to memorize a certain portion of Qur'an, the odds that all of them would be wrong at the time it was transcribed into paper is rather small. Let's say that each of them has a 0.01 chance to be wrong per word ( that means people who have memorized the Qur'an are expected to make 60 errors throughout, the 'modern standard' forbids more than 30 pronunciation errors, or more than 15 actual errors). Mathematically their transcriptions odds of inaccuracy for any given word are: 1e -80 (since at least half would all have to get it wrong simultaneously).

That's the beauty of having several people each having memorized the Qur'an independently of each other verifying it. In Usul-ul-Hadith (the science of analyzing the sayings of the Prophet(S) ) in order for a Hadith's transmission to be 'beyond doubt' it needs to have four independent and 'strong' chains of narration. The Qur'an was memorized by more people, valued more highly by more people, and - naturally - passed down more accurately by the same.



Sorry to write so much about a religious viewpoint - I just felt that it was really necessary to say it all in order to accurately and fully answer the questions you posed. I can expand more on the history of the transcription of the Qur'an if needed.

*SNIP* My point being, at least in several cases (though certainly not all, I'm not going to elevate my personal example and commit a false-generalization) faith can overcome doubt.

Do actually think this is a good thing? My biggest dream is that LOGIC can overcome FAITH.

Faith overcoming doubt =/= Faith overcoming logic. And if it is, then someone help me redefine these terms or show me how that's the case. You can have doubt where something is not provable nor disprovable. Where, in fact, we have no means whatsoever to even attempt an analysis of any sort. Logic does not dictate that we believe ANYTHING about such an object. The rules of debate and argument dictate that we should treat it as not there till we can prove it (ie: burden of proof is on the claimant), but if my heart 'feels' it then I would be logical in having faith in it. That is, if and only if I believe my heart to not be in error at the time.

I think logic overcoming faith is a good thing. But for that to happen, the logic has to be able to disprove the faith, not simply put the burden-of-proof on the faith. Putting the burden of proof on the one with faith is sufficient to tell him, "Stop preaching since you can't prove shit". But for logic to overcome faith, you have to show that the thing the person has faith in necessarily cannot be, or necessarily violates logic to believe in. I don't think that faith in the unseen is necessarily illogical if you have some reason to believe that the unseen exists.

Closer would be the 'is God evil?' argument and the 'Free Will vs Mercy' paradox.

*SNIP*
The examples you gave don't speak to rites and rituals though; and so I think it's quite likely I just missed your point here. If I did, please clarify.

I think I didn't express myself good enough, my fault sorry. I will try to clarify.
A lot of people think that "traditions" are good just for being traditions, for being things that are "old" or "ancient" and therefore somehow better, maybe that is also why people say "the good old days". The past is always treated better than the present. Religion has a lot of tradition, not only in societies but also in families and so on.
That's why I think that getting rid or criticizing traditions (that are bad; there is nothing wrong with "family-Sunday-supper-tradition"), will help eradicate religion. Even in science things become traditions, and people have to fight it. For example when scientist said that Pluto wasn't considered a planet anymore, not like Mars. It got a lot of "fuck that Pluto was always a planet" even from me, because it was getting a tradition.
As for sacred cows, if society kills them and we are used to that, people will be more likely to question faith-Dogmas. The sacred cows of religion.

Interesting. Where does a tradition end and a religious edict begin? I can see how aggravating it is to deal with someone who believes in an annoying religious edict (praying 5 times a day, not killing cows since they're god, refusing to give out abortion meds.) And inasmuch as these are traditions and not edicts I agree that they ought to be eliminated - since any 'true' religion ought not to be reduced to an anachronism. But for the religious edicts...those that can't just be interepreted away as tradition or 'a rule for that time only,' my justification is that God knows better than I do what is good or bad for me even if it seems bad for me. That's my take on it.

Pleas don't get offended by my questions, as I am interested in your answer.

I'm not offended by people that ask questions; or that politely call me out for being wrong, who point out my errors when I err, who show me my blindness when I'm being blind. I get offended when someone's trying to insult and flame me - but that's this boards policy (for good reason - given the type of traffic) and so I suck it up and deal with it. In other words, 'sall good.

Sorry my answer got so long

-AHMAD

[Darth Wong]

How would the view that education, intelligence, and wealth all breed atheism explain a guy I know? He is white, upper middle class, IQ scores approaching genious level. He has atheist parents and went to a non-confessional school; I do not think he was ever in church, if you do not count museums. He left high school with excellent grades and went on to college.

And in spite of it all he is still approaching fundie levels of blind faith (in Christianity).

Is he just the exception that proves the rule, or...?

Jesus fucking Christ, do you also use anecdotal exceptions to prove that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Jesus fucking Christ, do you also use anecdotal exceptions to prove that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer?

To be fair, he never said that or implied it. He asked if there was a way the two could be reconciled. He didn't conclude that if they couldn't be then the rule must be wrong. He even explicitly said 'is this the exception that proves the rule?', acknowledging the possibility that his friend might just be an exception.

Don't strawman his question into a position he didn't try to take.

-AHMAD

[Darth Wong]

Jesus fucking Christ, do you also use anecdotal exceptions to prove that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer?

To be fair, he never said that or implied it. He asked if there was a way the two could be reconciled. He didn't conclude that if they couldn't be then the rule must be wrong. He even explicitly said 'is this the exception that proves the rule?', acknowledging the possibility that his friend might just be an exception.

Don't strawman his question into a position he didn't try to take.

-AHMAD

Don't be a fucking moron, dipshit. One does not even ask a question like that unless he thinks there's something there. Adding disclaimers only means he's not sure.

[Darth Hoth]

How would the view that education, intelligence, and wealth all breed atheism explain a guy I know? He is white, upper middle class, IQ scores approaching genious level. He has atheist parents and went to a non-confessional school; I do not think he was ever in church, if you do not count museums. He left high school with excellent grades and went on to college.

And in spite of it all he is still approaching fundie levels of blind faith (in Christianity).

Is he just the exception that proves the rule, or...?

Jesus fucking Christ, do you also use anecdotal exceptions to prove that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer?

I just wondered how you would explain him, since apparently he does not fit the template of uneducated and indoctrinated people. While your theory does appear generally correct, what would cause the exceptions? What might be the reason fundamentalism spring up in such environments? Just a simple question. I will not argue against the general point.

[Ghost Rider]

How would the view that education, intelligence, and wealth all breed atheism explain a guy I know? He is white, upper middle class, IQ scores approaching genious level. He has atheist parents and went to a non-confessional school; I do not think he was ever in church, if you do not count museums. He left high school with excellent grades and went on to college.

And in spite of it all he is still approaching fundie levels of blind faith (in Christianity).

Is he just the exception that proves the rule, or...?

Jesus fucking Christ, do you also use anecdotal exceptions to prove that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer?

I just wondered how you would explain him, since apparently he does not fit the template of uneducated and indoctrinated people. While your theory does appear generally correct, what would cause the exceptions? What might be the reason fundamentalism spring up in such environments? Just a simple question. I will not argue against the general point.

You really are a fucking moron.

Gee, exceptions to the rule, I'm glad you're able to point this out. The point of the matter you are not showing anything else but that and it doesn't fucking defy what is the general trend.

Now do you grasp dumbfuck?

[K. A. Pital]

If he's wondering what causes the exceptions to a societal trend... well, the thing that people have different mental/psychological profiles? Some are more inclined to believe the irrational despite education and knowledge, some - the opposite?

[Darth Hoth]

You really are a fucking moron.

Gee, exceptions to the rule, I'm glad you're able to point this out. The point of the matter you are not showing anything else but that and it doesn't fucking defy what is the general trend.

Now do you grasp dumbfuck?

If you cared to read my posts, you would see that I made no such claim and indeed explicitly stated that; my first post may have been somewhat poorly worded, but I should think I made myself quite clear in my reply to Wong.

That said, I have nothing more to add to the discussion and will accordingly leave it.