3 ms·

Do you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. I am not saying that you are wrong, but you have made a very serious claim sans any quantifiabl

Do you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. I am not saying that you are wrong, but you have made a very serious claim sans any quantifiable evidence.

ianstallings 13y ago
Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
mindcrime 13y ago
Do you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. No, I do not. Anybody who has even a passing familiarity with history should be able to recognize the truth in my comment. Beyond that, this discussion isn't important enough to me to justify going out and treating it like a research project and providing citations and sources in meticulous detail. OTOH, perhaps I am wrong. So be it.
- jtc331 13y ago
  Yeah, actually the evidence demonstrates that an order of magnitude (or more) of people have been killed by governments than by religion. And most of those governments were (officially) atheistic.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Yeah, but who cares who is "1" and "2" on the list, or "1a" and "1b" even. Both have been responsible for an awful lot of killing and mayhem.
sageikosa 13y ago
If you have a value system that includes rationality, then religious institutions are diametrically opposed due to their "turtles all the way down" reliance on irrationality, no matter how deep you go eventually you have to make a leap of faith off of the rationality train.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "then religious institutions are diametrically opposed due to their "turtles all the way down" reliance on irrationality" That's a pretty broad statement. "no matter how deep you go eventually you have to make a leap of faith off of the rationality train." The same is true of mathematics. Eventually you need to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved, or else you would have circular logic (among other issues). The real mark of irrationality is an unwillingness to resolve or even acknowledge inconsistencies. Some religions have this feature, usually dressed up in a "this tests your faith" argument. Other religions demand that inconsistencies be resolved by religious authorities or by practitioners willing to devote time and effort. In the past century, a large number of religious leaders from various religious have adjusted their doctrines and teachings in the face of scientific results. Not every religion is based on denying reality or condemning people who question core beliefs. I know an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who acknowledges that it is possible to be an observant, orthodox Jew who does not believe in God.
  - sageikosa 13y ago
    1) Yes, it is a broad statement about institutions devoted to religion. 2) Mathematics is based on logic, which doesn't need phenomenal "facts", just logical consistency. Physics, which uses mathematics needs both phenomenal facts and logical consistency, and since the more phenomenal facts can be discovered, the physical models can change. Mathematics is a tool of rationality, not a replacement for it. 3) Somewhat agreed that irrationality is an unwillingness to accept models rationally created. If the model of a system isn't created by phenomenal facts and logical consistency, then it is irrational.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "Mathematics is based on logic, which doesn't need phenomenal "facts", just logical consistency" The problem is that for most interesting math, we can only assume without proof that there is logical consistency.
      - 13y ago

Do you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. I am not saying that you are wrong, but you have made a very serious claim sans any quantifiable evidence.

ianstallings 13y ago

Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

mindcrime 13y ago

Do you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. No, I do not. Anybody who has even a passing familiarity with history should be able to recognize the truth in my comment. Beyond that, this discussion isn't important enough to me to justify going out and treating it like a research project and providing citations and sources in meticulous detail. OTOH, perhaps I am wrong. So be it.

jtc331 13y ago
Yeah, actually the evidence demonstrates that an order of magnitude (or more) of people have been killed by governments than by religion. And most of those governments were (officially) atheistic.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Yeah, but who cares who is "1" and "2" on the list, or "1a" and "1b" even. Both have been responsible for an awful lot of killing and mayhem.

sageikosa 13y ago

If you have a value system that includes rationality, then religious institutions are diametrically opposed due to their "turtles all the way down" reliance on irrationality, no matter how deep you go eventually you have to make a leap of faith off of the rationality train.

betterunix 13y ago
"then religious institutions are diametrically opposed due to their "turtles all the way down" reliance on irrationality" That's a pretty broad statement. "no matter how deep you go eventually you have to make a leap of faith off of the rationality train." The same is true of mathematics. Eventually you need to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved, or else you would have circular logic (among other issues). The real mark of irrationality is an unwillingness to resolve or even acknowledge inconsistencies. Some religions have this feature, usually dressed up in a "this tests your faith" argument. Other religions demand that inconsistencies be resolved by religious authorities or by practitioners willing to devote time and effort. In the past century, a large number of religious leaders from various religious have adjusted their doctrines and teachings in the face of scientific results. Not every religion is based on denying reality or condemning people who question core beliefs. I know an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who acknowledges that it is possible to be an observant, orthodox Jew who does not believe in God.
- sageikosa 13y ago
  1) Yes, it is a broad statement about institutions devoted to religion. 2) Mathematics is based on logic, which doesn't need phenomenal "facts", just logical consistency. Physics, which uses mathematics needs both phenomenal facts and logical consistency, and since the more phenomenal facts can be discovered, the physical models can change. Mathematics is a tool of rationality, not a replacement for it. 3) Somewhat agreed that irrationality is an unwillingness to accept models rationally created. If the model of a system isn't created by phenomenal facts and logical consistency, then it is irrational.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Mathematics is based on logic, which doesn't need phenomenal "facts", just logical consistency" The problem is that for most interesting math, we can only assume without proof that there is logical consistency.
    - 13y ago