Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:54 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default David\'s challenge?

I think the bottom line in David’s main thesis is really the following. The other parts to it are only relevant if the following is true. And if this part is true, then his thesis is extremely relevant.

He basically contends (and I will have to paraphrase and please correct me if I got the gist wrong - or if it could be stated better than here, too):

The main problem with religions isn’t that they are probably false or bogus. (Why would any non believer give a hoot?)
Religions indeed do much good for society.
Religion’s main detriment is when it misdirect the talents of geniuses or would be geniuses towards what the individual ends up doing with his life instead of in ways that might better serve ( humanity or science for sure - in the larger scheme of things).

It is basically about opportunity cost. (defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost)

edit - my link didn't work , if someone can post a link for me, please? I am an idiot.

If I got right what David is suggesting and if I am wrong about religion and if he is right about the opportunity cost, we are still left with the question - so what? But, we can answer that by saying - well if one would have been Christian discovers something else that leads us to (or further in) the “right” direction of things, then you got something. If no God, anyway, then you just got more of the same (IMO). If towards another concept of God, then you probably got something.



Aside:

Btw, I really think he is wrong about opportunity cost. I don’t think Christians, for example, as a rule give up a science that they would have had a passion for because of their religion getting in the way. If we agree that the above is the main issue, then we have to study if religion is distracting would be scientist. If so then religion needs to better teach its members that the two are not mutually exclusive. If not the case, then a study of why scientist are so mistrusting of religion is in order (aside from the surface scratching we have done here. I really think it is because few have actually studied higher theology. ) I am not in the science social circles, but simply reading (for example) Bertie Russell’s text here briefly, he had no clue about Christianity.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-10-2005, 07:43 PM
Bigdaddydvo Bigdaddydvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 231
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, I really think he is wrong about opportunity cost. I don’t think Christians, for example, as a rule give up a science that they would have had a passion for because of their religion getting in the way. If we agree that the above is the main issue, then we have to study if religion is distracting would be scientist. If so then religion needs to better teach its members that the two are not mutually exclusive. If not the case, then a study of why scientist are so mistrusting of religion is in order (aside from the surface scratching we have done here. I really think it is because few have actually studied higher theology. ) I am not in the science social circles, but simply reading (for example) Bertie Russell’s text here briefly, he had no clue about Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was Thomas Aquainas who taught that there is one "truth" and essentially theological and scientific truths must not contradict. I fully embrace this idea (as I'm sure you do too RJT) which is the reason I wonder why most atheists have a standoffish, "either science or religion" attidude. I happen to see the harmony of both.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-10-2005, 07:56 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
...which is the reason I wonder why most atheists have a standoffish, "either science or religion" attitude...

[/ QUOTE ]

"God only knows", daddyo. (I say with a shrug.)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...which is the reason I wonder why most atheists have a standoffish, "either science or religion" attitude...

[/ QUOTE ]

"God only knows", daddyo. (I say with a shrug.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how Christians reject every other religion, but can't understand why anyone would reject theirs.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-10-2005, 08:22 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...which is the reason I wonder why most atheists have a standoffish, "either science or religion" attitude...

[/ QUOTE ]

"God only knows", daddyo. (I say with a shrug.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how Christians reject every other religion, but can't understand why anyone would reject theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I truly have no problem with those who reject any religion. I simply do not understand those who reject the possibility of a God is all. This is not to say those that do are wrong. I just don’t understand why the curiosity ends with science is all.

p.s. My comment was a simple joke. Is my humor that bad? Or do some simply have none at all?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-10-2005, 08:25 PM
Bigdaddydvo Bigdaddydvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 231
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny how Christians reject every other religion, but can't understand why anyone would reject theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes, the nature of my Faith is to reject all other competing Faiths. Buddism, Islam, will never be on the same level to me as Roman Catholocism. Moral equivalence among belief systems runs directly against those like me who believe that one true Church has the authority of Christ to teach the word of God.

2) I see plenty of reasons for people to reject Christianity and/or Catholicism. Reasons that immediately come to mind include: a)lack of Faith or belief that the existence of a God who loves us is a possibility or b)the desire to lead a lifestyle incompatible with Catholic or Christian teachings. I suspect the latter is a significant cause.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-10-2005, 10:42 PM
Aytumious Aytumious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 313
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's funny how Christians reject every other religion, but can't understand why anyone would reject theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes, the nature of my Faith is to reject all other competing Faiths. Buddism, Islam, will never be on the same level to me as Roman Catholocism. Moral equivalence among belief systems runs directly against those like me who believe that one true Church has the authority of Christ to teach the word of God.

2) I see plenty of reasons for people to reject Christianity and/or Catholicism. Reasons that immediately come to mind include: a)lack of Faith or belief that the existence of a God who loves us is a possibility or b)the desire to lead a lifestyle incompatible with Catholic or Christian teachings. I suspect the latter is a significant cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you mean by reason 'b'?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: David\'s challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...which is the reason I wonder why most atheists have a standoffish, "either science or religion" attitude...

[/ QUOTE ]

"God only knows", daddyo. (I say with a shrug.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how Christians reject every other religion, but can't understand why anyone would reject theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just Christians?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.