Page 1 of 1

Overcoming danger

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:46 pm
by wvanfleet
Religion without science is dangerous.
Science without religion is dangerous.

Science helps us to predict what will happen if we do certain things, and religion helps us to decide whether to do them or not.

But science is always improving, and so should religion be.

Faulty science can be dangerous.
Non-humanian religion can be dangerous.

We have a long way to go.

Bill Van Fleet
Humanian

Re: Overcoming danger

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:59 pm
by REveritt
You say

Code: Select all

Science without religion is dangerous.
I disagree.  Science without ethics is dangerous, but one might just as well say that life without ethics is dangerous.

Re: Overcoming danger

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:28 pm
by wvanfleet
A lot has to do with how words are used.

I use "ethics" to refer to all of those beliefs about what we should do.

Much of our bad behavior (as evaluated by consistency with the REUEP) is ethically driven behavior, that is, behavior consistent with what we believe we should do.

The 9/11 perpetrators believed that they should do what they did.  They believed they should according to authoritarian ethics (we should do whatever X wants, X being the most powerful).  They believed they were obeying a god.  Their religion was based upon inaccurate beliefs about the way the world is, as best determined by science.  If their religion used science as its handmaiden, their religion would have been different (probably in the direction of Humanianity).

A religion that says we should be fruitful and multiply would be one ignoring scientific evidence of overpopulation.

The religions need to embrace science.

The biggest problem in communication here is related to my not assuming that religion has to be against science.  It is a broader definition of religion than simply some variety of beliefs for which science has not found evidence.  The most fundamental characteristic of all those things called religions is that they are human activities designed to help figure out how best to live life, i.e., what we should do.  Religions are not ethics, but they are activities designed to improve our ethics (though of course they often have other functions also).  And my opinion, as a Humanian, is that such improvement in our ethics consists of their becoming more and more consistent with the REUEP.

Actually, I know what you mean, and agree with you.  Because many religions promote an ethics (authoritarian ethics) that is substantially different from rational ethics (meaning ethics with the REUEP as its UEP), they indeed make dangerous use of science, causing much pain, suffering, disability, and early death.

If you, for the purposes of our discussion, were to accept my definition during this discussion, would there be something I have said that you would disagree with?

Re: Overcoming danger

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:57 pm
by REveritt
Yes, there is one thing I disagree with.  You said:

Code: Select all

The most fundamental characteristic of all those things called religions is that they are human activities designed to help figure out how best to live life, i.e., what we should do. 
In my view, this is not the approach of religions.  I am not an expert on all religions, but many of those I am familiar with teach a set of revealed ethical values that are unchanging.  There is no effort to "figure out"; there is only reference to scripture.

My own view on ethics agrees with that of William James, who wrote that ethical understanding progresses.  What may have rationally been considered correct behavior at one time in history is rejected at a later time.  As our understanding of the world changes, we must continue to examine our values.

Re: Overcoming danger

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:28 pm
by wvanfleet
We humans have such difficulty coming to agreement because of our difficulty in communication.  We use words differently without realizing it, and therefore misunderstand each other and see agreement or disagreement when it is not there.  This is a good example.

The unfortunate term was "figure out."  In your mind, I think you thought I meant engage in some rational or logical process based upon evidence, etc.  What I meant was simply to come to a conclusion in some way.  As an example, religions that have "scripture" indeed use that scripture to come to a conclusion (or to justify a conclusion).  We should do such-and-such because in the scripture it says so-and-so.  So what you are seeing as a reason for disagreement is really something I agree with and therefore is a reason for agreement.

So I wasn't talking about the method of "figuring out" how we should live our lives; I was talking about the fact that a prominent function of the religions is to help individuals answer the question ("figure out" the answer).  Of course you and I would not agree with some of those answers, and certainly not the methods of arriving at them.  This is one of those areas, and an important one, in which I believe religions can improve.

With regard specifically to scripture, at least within Christianity we are seeing changes in ways of understanding and interpreting scripture such as to make scripture seem more relevant.  That change is occurring slowly, but I see it occurring.  McLaren's Everything Must Change is an example.  There is a move away from literal interpretation.  There is much more change of that nature that would be optimal, in my opinion.

Humanianity is an effort at "figuring out" what the right things to do are that is more consistent with what your meaning of "figuring out" was in your post.  I would say that there are better and worse ways of "figuring out" what we should do, but that all the religions do at least this, in addition to other things.

So I am assuming, tentatively, that we are actually in agreement.  If I am wrong, please let me know.

Re: Overcoming danger

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:08 am
by REveritt
With regard specifically to scripture, at least within Christianity we are seeing changes in ways of understanding and interpreting scripture such as to make scripture seem more relevant.  That change is occurring slowly, but I see it occurring.
Yes, for the intelligent, progressive Christian, scripture must be reinterpreted to be relevant.  If that is the case, why not just walk away from it entirely?

Ethical progress requires change in our ideas.  If we have an emotional investment in ancient literature as the source of all moral truth, then our ability to make progress is impeded.  I acknowledge the role of scripture in forming the cultural traditions in which I was raised, but I owe it nothing.  If an ethical tradition is worthy of preserving, it must be because it stands up to continued rational examination--not because some superstitious people believe it was handed down by a ghost in the sky.

Re: Overcoming danger

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:01 pm
by wvanfleet
REveritt wrote:
With regard specifically to scripture, at least within Christianity we are seeing changes in ways of understanding and interpreting scripture such as to make scripture seem more relevant.  That change is occurring slowly, but I see it occurring.
Yes, for the intelligent, progressive Christian, scripture must be reinterpreted to be relevant.  If that is the case, why not just walk away from it entirely?
Sounds good to me.  So why not just become educated today?  Why not build a muscular body this week?

If we are only satisfied if others do what is impossible for them, does that ultimately produce results consistent with the REUEP?
Ethical progress requires change in our ideas.  If we have an emotional investment in ancient literature as the source of all moral truth, then our ability to make progress is impeded.  I acknowledge the role of scripture in forming the cultural traditions in which I was raised, but I owe it nothing.  If an ethical tradition is worthy of preserving, it must be because it stands up to continued rational examination--not because some superstitious people believe it was handed down by a ghost in the sky.
I think an ethical tradition is worthy of preservation as an historical process that enables us to understand better who we are today and where we might be going in the future.

In Christian scripture, I believe one sees progression in ourselves as a species, as reflected by progression in our image of God.  It's almost as if God got some counseling and some help in anger management.

The mythical Jesus may be looked upon as a counselor for our species.  As awful as we have been, even after that help, I think we see further progression in our contemplation that we could actually start treating each other far, far better than we ever have, even globally.  (That's how such a strange idea as Humanianity has arisen.)

Without an understanding of history, are we not condemned simply to repeat it?  And are we not right in the middle of history?