Dear Emily, > I think that when we generalize and start debasing spirituality that > corresponds with an organized religion we lessen our arguments by > being ignorant to the fact that it is the Religion as an Institution > that has become corrupt and dogmatic, not necessarily the individuals. In the case of the mainstream religions, the issues already appear when reading the "holy" texts themselves. The institutions are only the part of the war machine responsible for adapting and "interpreting the metaphors" to have the groundless statements of the "holy" texts survive the embarrassment of being proved wrong by science and common knowledge. The problems are as much the "holy" texts, as the process of belief, as the institution. All of them are incompatible with the scientific method.
> It is true that many wars or hostilities have been based on religious > conflicts, or carried out in the name of a religion, but it is > ridiculous to say that religion is /based/ on being /antagonistic/ to > science. Religion and Science were born of the same Philosophical > questions, but diverged when the questions began to be asked in > different ways. "/Why/ does this exist" vs "/How/ does this exist?" First, they are antagonistic for the reasons that I gave in all my previous posts. Feel free to counter all my arguments one by one. Second, it is not because they were born from the same curiosity and tackle the same questions that they are compatible. The way that they propose to study the issues is incompatible. As a consequence, religion and science are antagonistic. To summarise the most obvious antagonism: Religions claim to tell the "truth" (and refuse to discuss it), the scientific method tries to uncover it (and encourages to challenge its results). Best regards, Christian Vincenot On 12/10/2011 12:20 AM, Emily Bingham wrote: > I think that this mass generalization of the use of the words > "religions" and "religious" are confusing the sentiment of this discussion. > > On a whole, having spirituality in the form of a religious faith or > belief system does not inherently clash with having scientific > understanding. > > I think that when we generalize and start debasing spirituality that > corresponds with an organized religion we lessen our arguments by being > ignorant to the fact that it is the Religion as an Institution that has > become corrupt and dogmatic, not necessarily the individuals. > > christian says " Religion > is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and > incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology" > > It is true that many wars or hostilities have been based on religious > conflicts, or carried out in the name of a religion, but it is > ridiculous to say that religion is /based/ on being /antagonistic/ to > science. Religion and Science were born of the same Philosophical > questions, but diverged when the questions began to be asked in > different ways. "/Why/ does this exist" vs "/How/ does this exist?" etc etc. > > Religion and Politics as institutions have both become bastardized > versions of their model pursuits --I do not believe that even Democracy > truly exist in practice-- and anyone in power, whether political or > religious, becomes corrupt with their own agendas. > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Christian Vincenot > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear Warren, > > > First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is > > overconsumption. > I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to > recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. > > > Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or > > at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. > Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on > the whole does not. > Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote > the idea that having a large family is "healthy". > Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and > pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other > religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed > as much in radical Islamic movements, as in "mainstream" Christianity. > For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't > need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of > their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate > their beliefs. > > > Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and > > biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education > > programs. > I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion > is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion > is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and > incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our predecessors > have learned to the cost of their lives how much religions have been > deceiving and incompatible with a methodological scientific approach to > the analysis of our world. This has been true since Copernicus and > Galileo until nowadays. > Therefore, I do not know how one can sincerely teach science and > religion at the same time without seeing any internal conflict or > contradiction. With all due respect, what would somebody like you have > taught a few centuries ago then? That the Earth was flat or not? What do > you teach nowadays? Creationism or Darwinism? Also, ultimately, what > prevails inside of you: the scientific proof or the religious belief? > > (Do not get me wrong. Believing inside of oneself that something MAY be > true withtout any proof is one acceptable thing I think. We do it as > scientists ourselves. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is the > formation of lobbying groups from which a real diktat emerges to enforce > their groundless suppositions as a truth and which create visions of the > world and rules of how to live which shall be applied to everyone. THIS > is what the mainstream religions have always been about, and this is > also what distinguishes philosophy from religion.) > > > The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what > > you call "lies") frequently parallel current science. > With all due respect, what I call "lies" ARE lies and not metaphors. The > list of all the "facts" that have been openly stated and ENFORCED by > religions and which proved to be blatantly false would be too long to > enumerate (just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature > of medical sciences, the Evil inside divorced or even pregnant women, > possession and exorcism, etc). Let's not have such a short-term > memory... Also, this dual nature of the religious teachings - once > metaphoric, once strictly unequivocal and direct - is in my opinion an > ultimate way of fooling people. "Sure, this was told and enforced > stricto sensu by our church during centuries, but actually people were > misunderstanding the metaphoric nature of the holy statements at that > time". Sincerely... > > > And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, > > e.g., "Why is there something instead of nothing?" > > "Why is there life?" "Why is their human intelligence and > > cognition?" "Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their > > genetic clan?" "Why are we here?" > The problems are the methodology for hypothesis creation and what is > done with this so-called "truth" afterwards. > First, proofing these hypothesises can only be done by science. If you > can propose any religious methodology for proofing any of the groundless > suggestions that can be made based on the theological approach, I would > be glad to discuss it. As a consequence, religions do not generate > knowledge and never will. > Second, philosophy can help develop theories for subjects that science > is unable to tackle due to their nature. Actually, some questions that > you mention are typical philosophical questions. No religion is needed > for this. > Third, religion would in no way bring any satisfying answer to these > problems. Actually, it has never done so. You mention about the origin > of life... if we were still believing the Catholic church, we would > still be thinking that life was created by an omnipotent omniscient god > in six days. Catholic theology has never challenged this point of view > (and AFAIK it still defends it). The only reason why we progressed on > this is thanks to Cartesian reasoning. > > I am sure that you will understand that nothing in my post was meant to > offend you personally. > > Sincerely, > Christian Vincenot > > > On 12/09/2011 04:26 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote: > > You make some good points, Christian, deserving a better response > than I'm > > going to provide right now at 11 p.m. > > First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is > > overconsumption. According to one source I've read, the average U.S. > > citizen has a consumption footprint as large as 90 Bangladeshis. > > Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote > or at > > least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. > > Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and > biological > > evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. The > myths and > > metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call "lies") frequently > > parallel current science. And they try to answer questions that > current > > science cannot answer, e.g., "Why is there something instead of > nothing?" > > "Why is there life?" "Why is their human intelligence and > cognition?" "Why > > are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan?" > "Why are > > we here?" > > > > Warren W. Aney > > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > Tigard, OR 97223 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Christian Vincenot > > Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 18:56 > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by > religon > > > >> Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on > >> population growth? > > I believe that Nathan answered this question in the very first > post. Simply > > because there is indeed an obvious dogma coming with these > religions (and a > > few other ones) that forbids abortion and/or promotes uncontrolled > > procreation while spreading flat lies about the carrying capacity > of our > > Earth. This in turn obviously impacts demography. I find the link > > straightforward and the original question raised in this thread > legitimate. > > > >> If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it > won't be > >> by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be > >> less"fruitful". > > Will it be by acknowledging or even ignoring what these religions > preach > > then? > > > >> Despite the predominance of these religions in countries > >> like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are > >> decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? > > Of course, education and birth control played a role... but the > decrease of > > power of religions also did. Actually the two are linked. Education > > generally lowers the belief in archaic mysticisms like religions. > (Actually, > > I am pretty sure that the strength of belief in religions could be > seen as a > > metric to measure the level of education of countries.) > > Also, note that the US or GB are not really examples of extremely > religious > > countries relatively to the rest of the world (although they > definitely are > > compared to other developed countries). > > > >> On the other hand, the countries with the highest population > growth rates > >> such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, > >> Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc > have what > >> sort of women's rights? What do you know, (...) > > With all due respect, most of the countries that you cite are > Christian > > countries (i.e. Liberia, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, East Timor), > and on top > > of this, all of them are way more religious than the US or GB. > > > >> Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% > and then > >> look at how women are treated in that nation. > > Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2%, > and then > > look at how religious they are. You will also be surprised. Again, > your > > argumentation against the importance of religions in this issue > does not > > stand. Take a look at this survey: > > http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg > > > > What you are ignoring is the opposition between religion and > education. Of > > course education would and hopefully will solve the issue of > overpopulation, > > but it will do so by explaining the flat lies that religions > carry, and > > which prevent women from enjoying their rights and freedom in > terms of > > birth control (and others). Therefore, you cannot deny the fact > that, in > > many cases (like in the one originally brought up by Nathan), > there is a > > link between religion (especially what you refer to as "Judaic > religions") > > and demography. You cannot fight one without fighting the other. > > > > Best regards, > > Christian Vincenot > > > > > > > -- > Christian Vincenot, PhD > Biosphere Informatics Laboratory > Department of Social Informatics > Kyoto University, JAPAN > > クリスティアン・ヴィンセノ > 博士後期課程 > グローバルCOE 研究助成 > 社会情報学専攻 生物圏情報学講座 > 京都大学 大学院情報学研究科 > 〒606-8501 京都市左京区吉田本町 > Tel: 075-753-3136 > Fax: 075-753-3133 > > > > > -- > emilouanna.etsy.com <http://emilouanna.etsy.com> >
