SeN still doesn't get it

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Everybody Wang Chung, I am not going to copy your illustrations. They present religion in way I do not sympathize with. I have not associated with folks saying god hates fags or who expect prayer to solve the problems we are to do with science and working together.

I think it is a bit unfair to compare some of the worst forms of religion with the successful efforts of science. But before that I do not understand what point the comparison has. I see no reason to choose between religion and science. I think they work together and people are best off with both. (I realize that means I think antiscience forms of religion are bad)

Religion is a call and inspiration to live life with honor responsibility and courage. It turns our mind to concern for others, fair play , forgiveness and encouragement of others as well as our self. It inspires the soul to music setting aside the darkness of bitter resentments.

I would not wish to live without science nor do I think that is possible. Even primitive societies have some practical science . That hardly means I have a wish to live without religion and its valuable dimensions of life.

Great points and I agree 100%.

I shouldn't have used a sledgehammer to drive home a small point.

[_huckelberry]

and I agree 100%.

I shouldn't have used a sledgehammer to drive home a small point.

Well you made a pointed criticism of some things definitely in need of criticism. Maybe sledgehammer is not completely unwarranted. (?)

[_Kishkumen]

Religion is a call and inspiration to live life with honor responsibility and courage. It turns our mind to concern for others, fair play , forgiveness and encouragement of others as well as our self. It inspires the soul to music setting aside the darkness of bitter resentments.

Lovely sentiment. I agree.

[_Symmachus]

Religion is a call and inspiration to live life with honor responsibility and courage. It turns our mind to concern for others, fair play , forgiveness and encouragement of others as well as our self. It inspires the soul to music setting aside the darkness of bitter resentments.

Lovely sentiment. I agree.

Me too. I would only adjust "is" to "can be."

[_toon]

Religion is a call and inspiration to live life with honor responsibility and courage. It turns our mind to concern for others, fair play , forgiveness and encouragement of others as well as our self. It inspires the soul to music setting aside the darkness of bitter resentments.

Not disagreeing, but all of that can be had without religion.

[_Lemmie]

Religion is a call and inspiration to live life with honor responsibility and courage. It turns our mind to concern for others, fair play , forgiveness and encouragement of others as well as our self. It inspires the soul to music setting aside the darkness of bitter resentments.

Not disagreeing, but all of that can be had without religion.

Yes. Absolutely.

[_DrW]

Not disagreeing, but all of that can be had without religion.

Yes. Absolutely.

And better yet, secular humanism has all of these wonderful rewards without the abandonment of one's personal integrity that is naturally associated with buy-in to the "non-overlapping magisteria" nonsense. This Gouldish invention claims that science has nothing to say about religion. Outside of a near impossibly narrow definition of the latter, nothing could be further from the truth.

[_Symmachus]

And better yet, secular humanism has all of these wonderful rewards without the abandonment of one's personal integrity that is naturally associated with buy-in to the "non-overlapping magisteria" nonsense. This Gouldish invention claims that science has nothing to say about religion. Outside of a near impossibly narrow definition of the latter, nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think one needs religion as opposed to secular humanism anymore than one needs a car as opposed to a bus. They have certain functions that sometimes overlap but not always, and so people use them according to circumstance and temperament. I get hesitant about the kind of moralizing your statement evinces, though. You are not in a position to make judgements about the personal integrity (as YOU define it) of strangers who are religious (as YOU define it).

What do you mean by "secular humanism" anyway? Reading Lucretius instead of the Bible? Secular humanism, whatever it means, has not been able to replace religion in terms of its communal and community-regulating functions, even if some of its manifestations avoid many of the excesses of certain kinds of religious people. Certain secular humanists strike me as uncompromising totalitarians, despite their enlightened opinions regarding the existence of supernatural beings and freedom from superstitious wafer-munching.

I'm not religious myself, but I don't know why one has to press one's own views on largely unprovable and pointless questions as the best for others to adopt simply because they appear to work best for oneself.

[_Lemmie]

And better yet, secular humanism has all of these wonderful rewards without the abandonment of one's personal integrity that is naturally associated with buy-in to the "non-overlapping magisteria" nonsense. This Gouldish invention claims that science has nothing to say about religion. Outside of a near impossibly narrow definition of the latter, nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think one needs religion as opposed to secular humanism anymore than one needs a car as opposed to a bus. They have certain functions that sometimes overlap but not always, and so people use them according to circumstance and temperament. I get hesitant about the kind of moralizing your statement evinces, though. You are not in a position to make judgements about the personal integrity (as YOU define it) of strangers who are religious (as YOU define it).

What do you mean by "secular humanism" anyway? Reading Lucretius instead of the Bible? Secular humanism, whatever it means, has not been able to replace religion in terms of its communal and community-regulating functions, even if some of its manifestations avoid many of the excesses of certain kinds of religious people. Certain secular humanists strike me as uncompromising totalitarians, despite their enlightened opinions regarding the existence of supernatural beings and freedom from superstitious wafer-munching.

I'm not religious myself, but I don't know why one has to press one's own views on largely unprovable and pointless questions as the best for others to adopt simply because they appear to work best for oneself.

I must be missing your point, symmachus.

You are not in a position to make judgements about the personal integrity (as YOU define it) of strangers who are religious (as YOU define it).

But I don't see how you are not making the same type of judgements here:

Certain secular humanists strike me as uncompromising totalitarians, despite their enlightened opinions regarding the existence of supernatural beings and freedom from superstitious wafer-munching.

I also seem to be missing your point here:

Secular humanism, whatever it means, has not been able to replace religion in terms of its communal and community-regulating functions, even if some of its manifestations avoid many of the excesses of certain kinds of religious people.

Hiring free workers hasn't been able to replace slavery, in terms of its profit and community-regulating functions, either. I know that is an extreme example, but why are the group control abilities of religion considered such a plus?

[_huckelberry]

And better yet, secular humanism has all of these wonderful rewards without the abandonment of one's personal integrity that is naturally associated with buy-in to the "non-overlapping magisteria" nonsense. This Gouldish invention claims that science has nothing to say about religion. Outside of a near impossibly narrow definition of the latter, nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr W, I can agree that what science finds out has real consequence for how religion is going to function, what it can believe and understand itself (even if significant portions of religion resists that influence)

Gould's idea of separation works better for what gets called liberal understandings of faith as apposed to fundamentalist versions.

I think , or got the impression, that Gould simply did not wish to involve himself in religion's problems with how to react to scientific discovery. He wished that to be none of his business.

I can see that for a religious person to use the idea of separate magisteria to simply ignore the ways scientific discovery demands change in religious belief would produce a loss of integrity .