How come Confucius teachings sounds much better than the 3 Abrahamic religions ?

[kallipolis]

Sorry. The thread got kinda "infested" with a certain someone's arrogant insistence he knows everything and thinks rationally even when he's not paying attetnion to the evidence he so loudly claims to crave.

How do you talk to someone who bloody well knows what Hitler's political rallies looked like and yet says "politics can't be ritualized"?

A very poignant reminder of the manner in which totalitarian ideologies adopt religious ritual as part of their public ceremonies to mesmerise the general public.

This clip illustrates your point, and admirably so:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9CIzY5wzmU[/ame]

 

[kallipolis]

It is a fact of life that not a few of the great scientists, and leaders of the French Enlightenment were dedicated Christians who were often a pain in the arse of the church hierarchy, with many of the progressive scientists themselves being Catholic priests and monks.

It would appear that there is a need to enlighten a few of the regular posters on this forum that they may appreciate how involved Christianity was in scientific research.

Even the famous Rene Descartes was a dedicated Catholic despite his appetite for annoying many in the church hierarchy with his appetite for rational debate.

While Western Europe entered a Dark Age after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire continued to flourish (as the Byzantine Empire) as the centre of arts, and civilisation until the Ottoman invasion of south eastern Europe during the 15th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists

I quote:

Many Roman Catholic clerics throughout history have made significant contributions to science. These cleric-scientists include such illustrious names as Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham, and many others. Hundreds of others have made important contributions to science from the Middle Ages through the present day.

The Church has also produced thousands of lay scientists and mathematicians, many of whom were the intellectual giants of their day. These scientists include Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, André-Marie Ampère, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Pierre de Fermat, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Alessandro Volta, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Pierre Duhem, Jean-Baptiste Dumas, Georgius Agricola and countless others.

 

[Jacquemar]

If Science is a process of investigation, then Theology is in the same category, therefore it is a form of Science.

I would dare say, that the Benedictine Monasteries of the day Brought forth what we see today as Modern Medicine, Agriculture, Hospitals, and Hotels. Cities, and towns sprung up around these Monasteries. The Order of Saint Benedict began in the 500's AD. Do not change the AD please. Those Monasteries were the Bulwork of Western Civilization, and without them....Western Society would be very different today.

Everybody get your shovels and boots... it's getting deep in here.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which begs the question, what is science? Because for damn sure “science” is not some kind of discreet entity like a god. I sometimes think that the religions who insist it is do so because they cannot comprehend the idea of critical thinking.

Science may not be a discreet entity, but people's image of science is. And that's where most religion comes into play anyway, with people's image of X, and not the thing itself.

“Science,” is a process of investigation nothing more, that has nothing to do with gods, and yes Kuli you are going to object – because you are a God person and want God to be behind all of everything, but frankly, religion has been an impediment to science, as plenty of your fellow Christians will acknowledge – just not you, and we aren’t going to agree, and we never have, and we never will, so don’t bother.

Why would I object?

I've acknowledged that religion has been an impediment -- but it has also had the opposite effect, and the great "iconic" moments used to portray religious obstruction to science tend to not be that. If you want to look at where religion has obstructed science, forget Galileo and Copernicus, which were devout men on each side arguing over science (for political reasons more than anything), and look at the Index, and look at that organ of the Roman Church formerly headed by Pope Rat.

Just because God is behind everything doesn't mean science is useless -- that's in fact what makes science possible: there's an orderly organizer behind it all.

The value of science in getting concrete answers in indisputable. Science produces a million miracles every day without the need of faith. As we all know sitting here in our houses worlds away and yet communicating through the miracle of science no matter which God we worship if indeed we worship any at all. AND YET science functions. Which science would adamantly insist was no miracle at all, because science requires those who practice it to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Which is how we got to computers and the internets and the tv.

Science still has faith that the laws operating today will be operating tomorrow -- a lesson I learned from an atheist.

There are plenty of people who are not scientists who just take it on “faith,” but really, that’s not religious faith, that’s faith born of experience and tangible proof.

Religious faith has no such underpinning. No it doesn’t Kuli, and you know that as well as I. Frankly science seeks no faith of any kind, and if people who have faith in science go looking for answers, they find concrete and immediate answers for why what works, works, and no apologies for why we don’t know what we don’t know.

I know the religious find solace among other things in their beliefs, THAT is religion, and that is not “science,” and it never will be.

Christianity definitely has such underpinnings. Over and over it's been shown to be sustainable in court under different systems of law in different centuries.

Science is not the only way of knowing things, nor is scientific evidence the only kind of evidence. Christianity may not have evidence that can be examined in a lab, but it has plenty of other kinds.

 

[Kulindahr]

If Science is a process of investigation, then Theology is in the same category, therefore it is a form of Science.

That's stretching it, Mikey, because there's a serious distinction here: theology continues to investigate a given and set body of data, while science investigates to find new data. You'd only have a parallel if science was stuck in the frame the 'Aristotelians' put it in for a long time, where Aristotle was considered to be The Final Word -- scientific investigation was shut down; the only investigation was into aspects and applications of Aristotle's words.

That's a major aspect of what happened with Galileo and Copernicus: the church had locked on to Ptolemy and his system as The Final Word in science, and defended that. But authority doesn't work in science; locking in what's known at any point as being all there is kills science -- yet it is basic to theology, because the only way for new material in theology is a General Council of the church, of which there have been none since the childish exchange of condemnation back in 1054 (and even then there's nothing 'new' per se, just defining what's already there, against error).

 

[Kulindahr]

I would dare say, that the Benedictine Monasteries of the day Brought forth what we see today as Modern Medicine, Agriculture, Hospitals, and Hotels. Cities, and towns sprung up around these Monasteries. The Order of Saint Benedict began in the 500's AD. Do not change the AD please. Those Monasteries were the Bulwork of Western Civilization, and without them....Western Society would be very different today.

"Brought forth" may be a bit strong. But the trial-and-error work at improving their ability to do these things helped, because it was a spirit of inquiry. Maybe "provided the seed bed" would be most accurate for medicine, since they developed caring for the sick into something systematic, which once the Renaissance hit made it easy to compare methods and treatments.

The Cistercians especially advanced things, notably in the area of agriculture -- including viniculture and the making of wine, which led to them becoming rich, which led to corruption, which led to an abandoning of inquiry, replacing it with holding to what had made them rich.

I have no clue what you mean with "Hotels". The Romans had inns, which is what Europe still had right into the time of Newton, and I don't recall the Benedictines (or anyone else) doing anything different.


BTW, a random thought: I've seen it argued that one of the reasons Europe was so weak before the Muslim aggression was the large portion of population stuck childless in monasteries and abbeys -- so whatever good things some of the monasteries yielded, in the net they weakened Christendom.

Yet because the Muslims came crashing in, a lot of science/knowledge that had been lost to Europe came back, sparking what came to be a definite scientific revolution. And I suspect part of THAT was because learning new things came to be a habit for some, who then set out to do so on their own.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks for this information, as it is educational for me. A simple mind never works the same way as an educated mind. It never hurts to learn something that I haven't heard before within the Christian framework. Thanks again. Keep up the great work you're doing here.

Tanks.

Pick up a book called Connections, by James... ... Burke (brain fart -- had to go look it up). It can help a lot in seeing the way things connect. His explanations also shatter some of the ways we tend to think the world fits together -- another always good thing.

That brings to mind a Benedictine monk I met who said flatly, "Everyone's concept of God is always wrong. It is the task of the preacher to shatter the listener's concept and allow a little more room for truth before the defenses snap shut" (second sentence not necessarily verbatim).

 

[Kulindahr]

The Monks in the Middle Ages were known also for their Hospitality.....I think that is what I meant to say earlier concerning Hotels,but they were as Guest Houses just outside of the Monastery walls, and operated by either the lay person or an extern Monk.

Ah -- I'd forgotten that some had guest houses outside the walls, in the later Middle Ages. Thanks.

 

[terryboy]

Ah -- I'd forgotten that some had guest houses outside the walls, in the later Middle Ages. Thanks.

if they knew you're messing with boys they wouldn't be hospitable... or maybe they will...

Anyway, we never say science explains everything, we never say science is and will be the only way to explain things. we are still searching and learning.


But we know a few things that work, and will work over and over again under specific circumstances and that knowledge is what we call science. we are not saying what we know is the absolute truth. we wonder if we will ever know the absolute truth.

If reliable knowledge can be considered a religion, what is not a religion? and in that case my religion would be pokemon, lady gaga, bdsm, wearing shoes and cooking shrimps.

 

[Kulindahr]

if they knew you're messing with boys they wouldn't be hospitable... or maybe they will...

Anyway, we never say science explains everything, we never say science is and will be the only way to explain things. we are still searching and learning.


But we know a few things that work, and will work over and over again under specific circumstances and that knowledge is what we call science. we are not saying what we know is the absolute truth. we wonder if we will ever know the absolute truth.

If reliable knowledge can be considered a religion, what is not a religion? and in that case my religion would be pokemon, lady gaga, bdsm, wearing shoes and cooking shrimps.

You may not say science explains everything, but there are plenty of people who say science is the only way to learn anything, and if science can't find it, it doesn't exist -- some of them are on JUB.

Reliable knowledge isn't what becomes a religion, it's trust, reliance on that knowledge for everything you need, physically and spiritually and all. So if you trust in pokemon, and look to it for solace, and give it honor, then it may well have become a religion for you.

The essence of religion isn't ritual, it's looking to something as the source of the things you need -- which is why the Libertarian Party "decr[ies] the cult of the omnipotent state": many people in a nanny state look to the government to solve all problems, provide all needs, grant security and comfort. Religion does tend to sprout rituals, but they aren't necessary, and on the flip side, the presence of rituals does not necessarily point to a religion (it may point to obsessive-compulsive disorder, for instance).

 

[Telstra]

You may not say science explains everything, but there are plenty of people who say science is the only way to learn anything, and if science can't find it, it doesn't exist -- some of them are on JUB.

Reliable knowledge isn't what becomes a religion, it's trust, reliance on that knowledge for everything you need, physically and spiritually and all. So if you trust in pokemon, and look to it for solace, and give it honor, then it may well have become a religion for you.

The essence of religion isn't ritual, it's looking to something as the source of the things you need -- which is why the Libertarian Party "decr[ies] the cult of the omnipotent state": many people in a nanny state look to the government to solve all problems, provide all needs, grant security and comfort. Religion does tend to sprout rituals, but they aren't necessary, and on the flip side, the presence of rituals does not necessarily point to a religion (it may point to obsessive-compulsive disorder, for instance).

Name one Jub member please.
I can't find any !!!

 

[Kulindahr]

Name one Jub member please.
I can't find any !!!

Giancarlo is one.

It's easy to find them dropping in and ridiculing everything religious in many threads in this forum.

 

[Telstra]

Giancarlo is one.

It's easy to find them dropping in and ridiculing everything religious in many threads in this forum.

I didn't notice him saying
"science is the only way to learn anything". No one

 

[kallipolis]

You may not say science explains everything, but there are plenty of people who say science is the only way to learn anything, and if science can't find it, it doesn't exist -- some of them are on JUB.

Rather like saying that Antarctica could not exist until it was discovered.

Science is not the issue rather that there are people who believe that science is the one, and only means by which the human person can discern reality.

It is often very difficult to trust the concealed influences feeding our senses as a result of our reluctance to believe that which we cannot see or, touch or, hear yet, many of us readily embrace our extra sensory understandings in preference to relying on black, and white facts inviting us to follow another direction.

It is often said that the human person sees life not as it appears to be, rather as we believe it is or, should be to address our natural willingness to be the master of our own destiny.

 

[terryboy]

You may not say science explains everything, but there are plenty of people who say science is the only way to learn anything, and if science can't find it, it doesn't exist -- some of them are on JUB.

Reliable knowledge isn't what becomes a religion, it's trust, reliance on that knowledge for everything you need, physically and spiritually and all. So if you trust in pokemon, and look to it for solace, and give it honor, then it may well have become a religion for you.

The essence of religion isn't ritual, it's looking to something as the source of the things you need -- which is why the Libertarian Party "decr[ies] the cult of the omnipotent state": many people in a nanny state look to the government to solve all problems, provide all needs, grant security and comfort. Religion does tend to sprout rituals, but they aren't necessary, and on the flip side, the presence of rituals does not necessarily point to a religion (it may point to obsessive-compulsive disorder, for instance).

Imo, our reliance on science is purely physical, which is why a big portion of science is called 'Physics'.

I don’t know anyone would rely on science for their spiritual needs (I am not saying this kind of people don’t exist). 'Spirits' is not a branch of science, studies related to spirits are metaphysics - 'beyond physics'.

I disagree with your argument that just anything can be a religion. I think most people would disagree with you too. Physics is science, Christianity is a religion, Confucianism is a branch of philosophy or arguably a religion, pokemon is cartoon.

Your saying that anything can be a religion is like saying anything can be shoes. you can strap telephones to your feet and walk with telephones as shoes. That still doesn't make telephones.. shoes.. It's not wrong to do that but it's certainly not right.

I also disagree that science can be a religion, as would most people from the scientific community.
Science is knowledge gathered to explain (in the best way we can) how this universe/ultraverse/multiverse works, not to feed humans physical/spiritual needs.

We never say that if science cannot find something, it doesn't exists. In fact scientists often theorize that something exists before they are able to find it. Laser is one example.

Einstein postulated that light bends with gravity, there was no way to prove it back then, and today we know it's a real effect called gravitational lensing.

We don't say G-d doesn't exists, we say - prove that G-d exists. I'm sure the scientific community would be really happy if someone can really prove (really prove, not because the bible says so) that G-d exists, because that will solve most if not all our problems.

 

[Kulindahr]

Imo, our reliance on science is purely physical, which is why a big portion of science is called 'Physics'.

I don’t know anyone would rely on science for their spiritual needs (I am not saying this kind of people don’t exist). 'Spirits' is not a branch of science, studies related to spirits are metaphysics - 'beyond physics'.

I disagree with your argument that just anything can be a religion. I think most people would disagree with you too. Physics is science, Christianity is a religion, Confucianism is a branch of philosophy or arguably a religion, pokemon is cartoon.

Communism was politics, but that didn't stop people from making a religion of it, i.e. putting their trust in it, depending on it to provide a good life, regarding it as the source of all that is good, etc. Deity isn't required for religion, and people will look to the craziest things for their guidance and comfort and safety. Physics may be a science, but it's the attitude toward it that can make science into a religion, or perhaps the 'idol' at the focus of a religion. Most people don't actually understand science, but many put their trust and reliance in it, making it a religion.

Your saying that anything can be a religion is like saying anything can be shoes. you can strap telephones to your feet and walk with telephones as shoes. That still doesn't make telephones.. shoes.. It's not wrong to do that but it's certainly not right.

I also disagree that science can be a religion, as would most people from the scientific community.
Science is knowledge gathered to explain (in the best way we can) how this universe/ultraverse/multiverse works, not to feed humans physical/spiritual needs.

It's not relevant what science is in itself; what's relevant is how people treat it. Millions rely on it as a matter of faith, looking to it as the font of wisdom and knowledge that can answer all questions, including morals.

And there's where your shoes analogy fails: the things substituted for shoes actually have to work as shoes, but the things substituted for God or something similar don't have to function at all in any way related to that, they just have to be able to be twisted into having the appearance of doing so. It's like the ancients worshiping idols: in themselves, the idols were just stone or clay or wood or such, but what made it a religion was that people put their faith and trust and hopes in them, or rather the beings behind them. In itself, science is a mechanism, a system, a community, a body of knowledge, all inanimate like those idols. But when people put their faith and trust and hopes in it, it becomes a religion -- in fact, a religion far more efficacious than that with the idols, because science does provide 'miracles', solutions, benefits... and that makes it all the easier to turn into a religion. What the actual purpose of science is doesn't matter; it's what people regard it as.

We never say that if science cannot find something, it doesn't exists. In fact scientists often theorize that something exists before they are able to find it. Laser is one example.

Einstein postulated that light bends with gravity, there was no way to prove it back then, and today we know it's a real effect called gravitational lensing.

We don't say G-d doesn't exists, we say - prove that G-d exists. I'm sure the scientific community would be really happy if someone can really prove (really prove, not because the bible says so) that G-d exists, because that will solve most if not all our problems.

That's a nice romantic view of things, but many, many advocates of science maintain that nothing can be known any other way. In fact you just did it there: you demand that God be proven scientifically before you believe. That denies any other means for gaining knowledge (which is one aspect of making science a religion).

 

[terryboy]

Shoes are supposed to protect our feet. If i strap phones on my feet and walk with them, they can also protect my feet so why i cant call them shoes?

 

[Kulindahr]

Shoes are supposed to protect our feet. If i strap phones on my feet and walk with them, they can also protect my feet so why i cant call them shoes?

How about because they are open-toed and don't cover the tops of your feet?

 

[Telstra]

Many people called sport a religion doesn't make it a religion.
But it is similar to religion, it got rituals, followers, communities, social events ... etc.


Anyway, religion should be defined as anything to do with supernatural is a religion.
And the heads of all religions are always supernatural like "god" or the "higher power".

 

[Kulindahr]

No, calling it one doesn't make it one -- it's what people do with it. When people wrap up their whole lives in sports, take their solace from sports, rest their well-being on sports, they're making a religion of it.