5 ms·

Any organized religion is based on some scripture(s). e.g. Islam is mainly based on Quran and Hadiths. Generally, discussions/debates regarding any inconsisten

by tmptmp 10y ago

Any organized religion is based on some scripture(s). e.g. Islam is mainly based on Quran and Hadiths. Generally, discussions/debates regarding any inconsistencies or ridiculous statements found in the scriptures is prohibited by the religions. Consider a scenario of person like Bruno/Galileo ([1], [2]) getting dragged into religious court and getting a guilty verdict from the court and are ordered to be punished. The religious courts would want the public to know the punishment and hence they will carry out the punishment in broad public view but the religious courts would not want the public to know exactly why the punishment was given. Because, if they allow this public information to become available to the public, then they fear that the very legitimacy of their religion can be questioned and rejected by the public. Now consider a scenario of someone wishes to publish the court proceedings of the case of Bruno or Galileo in public at that time. Such a publication, if it contains the reason why the person was found guilty, will contain the information about the discoveries that have the potential to shake the very foundations of the religion. Now we must understand that majority of people in the religious based societies (e.g. Islamic societies) are religious (i.e. not-rational and with mostly closed minds about matters concerning their religion) and thus are very sentimental about their religion, their prophets and scriptures and they cannot stand the idea that their religion can be false/wrong/evil. Hence the religious societies (e.g. Islamic societies) will not want the public information to be made public, if they think that it has the potential to shake the very foundations of the religion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

ace_of_spades 10y ago
Just two points for consideration: 1. Your argument does not explain simple cases like the building code example where there seems to be little to no chance of this kind of information having a foreseeable impact on the very foundations of the religion 2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How will you ever show that there is no God if technological progress is likely to enable us the construction of artifical realities in the future? The more I think rationally about my experience of the world and the future that we are (or better could be) walking towards the less I am able to reject the very foundations of religion. My intent with this post is not to excuse some archaic traditions and injustice done in the name of religion but to highlight that there exist some very real parallels between the foundations of religions based on intuitive insight and rational thought based on scientific evidence. Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics and focused on the pragmatic matters at hand - that is how to best live together. Or why are we reading hacker news after all? :)
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How will you ever show that there is no God if technological progress is likely to enable us the construction of artifical realities in the future? I am afraid there is a confusion in the above statement about deeper philosophical considerations (like whether there is god(s) or not?) with the extremely lowly ramblings found in religious scriptures (e.g. there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe) and that these lowly ramblings are claimed to have been written by omniscient god(s). Yes, I do agree that there may be some discussion about some deep philosophical questions to be found in the heap of ramblings present in the religious texts. But the philosophical issues are hardly of foundational nature in most mainstream religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We can easily see that their foundations are rather lowly claims like there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe. So the very foundations I am talking about, are the almost foolish and childish claims made in religious scriptures and a foundational issue that these foolish/flimsy claims are made by god(s). A religious society will not allow any public information that it considers as having the potential to shake the foundations of their religion to be available to the public for consideration/discussion. I have no problem with a rational discussion about whether there is god or not or a single god or multiple gods etc. >>Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics ... Yes, I do agree.
  - ace_of_spades 10y ago
    Thank you for your response :) It seems like I couldn't really convey the point I was trying to make. So, here is one more attempt. The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has. If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy... So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing. To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem. I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :) P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D

by tmptmp 10y ago

ace_of_spades 10y ago

Just two points for consideration: 1. Your argument does not explain simple cases like the building code example where there seems to be little to no chance of this kind of information having a foreseeable impact on the very foundations of the religion 2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How will you ever show that there is no God if technological progress is likely to enable us the construction of artifical realities in the future? The more I think rationally about my experience of the world and the future that we are (or better could be) walking towards the less I am able to reject the very foundations of religion. My intent with this post is not to excuse some archaic traditions and injustice done in the name of religion but to highlight that there exist some very real parallels between the foundations of religions based on intuitive insight and rational thought based on scientific evidence. Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics and focused on the pragmatic matters at hand - that is how to best live together. Or why are we reading hacker news after all? :)

tmptmp 10y ago
>>2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How will you ever show that there is no God if technological progress is likely to enable us the construction of artifical realities in the future? I am afraid there is a confusion in the above statement about deeper philosophical considerations (like whether there is god(s) or not?) with the extremely lowly ramblings found in religious scriptures (e.g. there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe) and that these lowly ramblings are claimed to have been written by omniscient god(s). Yes, I do agree that there may be some discussion about some deep philosophical questions to be found in the heap of ramblings present in the religious texts. But the philosophical issues are hardly of foundational nature in most mainstream religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We can easily see that their foundations are rather lowly claims like there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe. So the very foundations I am talking about, are the almost foolish and childish claims made in religious scriptures and a foundational issue that these foolish/flimsy claims are made by god(s). A religious society will not allow any public information that it considers as having the potential to shake the foundations of their religion to be available to the public for consideration/discussion. I have no problem with a rational discussion about whether there is god or not or a single god or multiple gods etc. >>Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics ... Yes, I do agree.
- ace_of_spades 10y ago
  Thank you for your response :) It seems like I couldn't really convey the point I was trying to make. So, here is one more attempt. The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has. If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy... So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing. To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem. I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :) P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D