cuddly_tomato said:
I disagree with Martin Luther. Religion isn't at odds with reason, unless the religious person takes the word of religion over their own experiences and knowledge. That is dogma. I would also disagree that we are not talking about spiritual belief. Religion is basically all about spiritual and moral direction. I will quote someone else who can say it far better than I can, physicist Freeman Dyson [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson].
Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions
Rationality doesn't apply to religion. Not at all. However, that is not to say that belief in religion is
irrational (which is the opposite of rationality, not it's absence). Let me ask you a few rhetorical questions (I am not asking you to answer these questions BTW, they are just serving as examples)....
If you wanted to have children, really badly, but found out that the woman you loved dearly was infertile. What is the rational thing to do?
A superb brain surgeon, who could save many lives, has been found guilty of murdering his wife for insurance money. What is the rational thing to do? (incidentally, saying that "lock him up because this will serve as an example to other brain surgeons who all are co-incidentally homicidal" is pretty much a cop-out because you know exactly what I am driving at).
I agree with you totally that religion is absent from rationality, where I think we differ is my assertion that sometimes that is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't completely over-ride what is undeniably fact (i.e. creationism and that kind of crap).
siege_1302 said:
Plus, to argue semantics to be funny, technically all atheists are fundamentalists. You can't get much more fundamental than 'god doesn't exist'. That's basically it.
Not at all. There is a massive difference between "God doesn't exist" and "I don't believe that god exists".
EDIT: Also, there are many shades of atheism. I do not believe in god (or any form of omnipotent being), so technically I am an atheist. But I still have religious beliefs of a different sort.
First: All too many times, people DO take the word of religion over their own experiences. For example, I know a very intelligent 18 year old who is at university studying music. However, despite what he has been taught in science lessons he still believes that genesis is fact.
I would ask you a question: who appointed religion as the spiritual and moral directors? For one thing, spiritual direction is a tricky thing. What is it, exactly? And where did these same people able to guide us get their morals? Arguably, from exactly the same place the rest of us did: from the prevailing societal norms of the time. How can religion claim a monopoly on these things?
With regards to Mr Dyson, religion was once an attempt to understand the world outside, but has now been thoroughly surpassed by science's ability to actually answer the questions. I would be interested to hear exactly what a scientific interpretation of the universe leaves out (presumably gods, as an unverified hypothesis).
He also seems to misunderstand the main premise of the scientific method. Odd for a physicist. If a theory or hypothesis is contradictory to evidence without reasonable rationalisation it is abandoned or adapted to fit the evidence. With this method, we have progression. However, religious scripture has remained unchanged in some cases for millenia.
The great number of religious people treat science with respect, it is true. And I would imagine the majority of scientists aren't vocal oppenents of religion. But at their very core both scientists and the religious are at odds: scientists, through their work are slowly destroying the beliefs of the religious.
Secondly: rationality doesn't apply to religion. This is something I agree with you on. I would ask you though, what is the absence of rationality, if not irrational? The fact that religion is not concerned with mere rationality shows how out of touch with reality it is, and from this I would say it has no place dealing with anything real, at least as it affects me. I certainly agree when people actively deny scientific fact on a religious basis it has gone too far. I think it's tragic when people are that uncomfortable with reality.
Surely the rational thing to do with regards to your first question (I felt like answering) is to evaluate all possible options. Either stay with the woman you love and accept that you will not have children, explore possibilities with alternatives like adoption, IVF, etc, or finally leave the relationship.
The rational answer to your second question would be to imprison him. He comitted a crime and according to the laws of the land, his talent at brain surgery would be sacrificed as punishment for the crime. Meanwhile, the responsibility for the lives he could have saved would be on his head, not the judge's. After all, he is responsible for being put in prison.
Thirdly: yes, there is a difference. But I'd ask this question (call it rhetorical or not). What is the difference between a world where god does exist and one where he doesn't?
If, to all intents and purposes god appears not to exist, I can safely say 'god doesn't exist' in the same way I say unicorns and dragons don't exist.
Finally: the definition of atheism is pretty clear cut. According to the Princeton online dictionary, atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". All of the other definitions I looked at were pretty much the same. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.
This is the longest post I've ever written, sorry about the wall of text attack. It won't happen again.
