Merran, It appears that a few clarifications are in order. My arguments came from a purely secular perspective. I'm not saying that everything good in religion comes from god, nor am I saying that one must be religious in order to have a sense of ethics.
On the first point, I wasn't really bringing a belief in a god into the conversation at all. One can have a spiritual side without necessarily believing in a god. Rather, I was pointing that religion can serve a positive purpose in one's life and make them more, not less, likely to behave in desirable ways (say, for example, limiting offspring). On the second point, a re-reading of my earlier email will show that I acknowledged that some folks prefer to couch their ethical choices in a philosophical context. My exact words were, "That's fine." What does it mean when you say that your ethics are based on your own thinking? In your example, science tells you that overpopulation is hurting the planet. What tells you that hurting the planet is bad? It's not science, because that's a value judgment. Nor does science tell you that women shouldn't be oppressed. Pure logic won't get you there either. At some point, you have to choose some fundamental beliefs. Those choices may be influenced by all sorts of things, including upbringing, social norms, personal reflection, and sometimes a spiritual or religious belief. My point is that if someone else on this list responds by saying that they limit their offspring because they feel that the earth system is a gift from God and they should respect that gift, that's fine too. I think part of our differences here is that both you and Christian seem to be defining all religion or spiritualism in terms of rather narrow-minded religious folks you've been in contact with. I certainly agree that simply quoting a scripture is not a valid argument for a particular policy or action. I guess I would encourage you and Christian not to equate spirituality with close-mindedness. In doing so, you make the same mistake as religious people who feel you could not possibly make an ethical decision without sharing their religious beliefs. Cheers, Richard 2011/12/10 Merran <[email protected]> > Richard, > > I live in a very religious area and I often hear some of the arguments > that you have made. In particular, the idea that all bad things in > religion come from man, who is imperfect, and that all good things in > religion come from god, who is perfect. Of course, you have to be willing > to believe in god in order for this argument to hold water. From a secular > viewpoint, it just looks like people are capable of both good and bad. I > would also reassert Christian's point: "In the case of the mainstream > religions, the issues already appear when reading the 'holy' texts > themselves." > > But this confuses me: the idea that a secular person is not capable of > thinking murder is wrong without believing in god. I'm not religious. I > still have my opinions on what is right or wrong. But I call them ethics > rather than morals. And since my ethics are based on my own thinking > rather than what I have been told to think, it is easier for me to change > my mind based on scientific evidence. > > If I am presented with evidence that overpopulation is hurting the planet, > I consider whether it is wrong or right to have a large family. I don't > say, "But god wants me to have a large family." If I am in a society that > oppresses women, I consider whether this is wrong or right. I don't say, > "But god tells me women are worth less." If I am in a society in the > middle of a religious war, I consider whether it is wrong or right to kill > someone. I don't read "Thou shalt not kill" in my holy scriptures and then > think, 'Well, Joshua killed and Moses killed and Lot let his daughters be > raped, so it must be okay so kill some people, based on what demographic > group they belong to.' > > I also wanted to point out, in reference to some earlier arguments, that > having a large family or believing in god does not make you a > fundamentalist or uneducated. I live down the street from an excellent, > religious university and I greatly admire many of the scientists associated > with this institution. But I believe that, as a secular person, I am > capable of the same good that any religious person is capable of. And they > are capable of the same evil that I am. Just sayin. > > Merran > > 2011/12/10 Richard <[email protected]> > >> Christian, >> >> I assume your arguments here are intended to promote science, or at least >> to present why science should be promoted and to the exclusion of >> religion. >> However, I think that your characterization of science, in addition to >> being somewhat misleading, does more to hurt that cause than to help it. >> >> First, let me point out where I agree with you. You mention that the list >> of lies stated by religions is too long to enumerate and you point to >> "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." I would characterize these examples, which I agree just >> scratch the surface, as representative of a long list of stupid ideas >> presented by religious folks rather than religious doctrines. This is >> perhaps a semantic distinction, but it points to where I feel you are >> missing the usefulness of religion or spirituality. >> >> I could point to a long list of bad scientific ideas too. Here's one just >> for fun: Craniometry, the scientific study of the human skull, as a tool >> for measuring intelligence. Using cranial capacity data, scientists >> showed >> why, objectively speaking, men (with there on average larger skulls) are >> mentally superior to women. It was also used to show why Europeans were >> mentally superior to Asians and Africans. >> >> My intention is not to see who--scientists or religious folks--have come >> up >> with the most stupid ideas historically. Rather, I want to point out that >> you are focusing on only the negative aspects of religion and >> spirituality. You might say that scientists no longer take cranial >> capacity as an indication of intelligence. I would similarly suggest that >> as far as I know most religious folks are now on board with the idea of a >> round earth. >> >> Of course there are still many scientific ideas that significant >> proportions of religious folks still resist. I find it immensely >> frustrating and baffling how many Americans are willing to throw away the >> findings of evolutionary biology in order to maintain an overly literal >> interpretation of a passage written in a book thousands of years old. I'm >> sure you could cite other examples equally as frustrating and baffling to >> you. >> >> I suggest that the problem, with both science and religion, comes when one >> claims, in the name of either, to have access to some sort of ultimate >> truth. I think we'd both agree that "I read it in the [Insert holy book >> of >> choice here]. Therefore, ,no amount of evidence to the contrary will >> change >> my view," is not a valid argument. >> >> Postmodern philosophy (as well as neuroscience) has shown us that science >> is not a window into ultimate truth either. Rather, science is a powerful >> method for making predictive models that help us in countless ways. This >> makes science great for making statements like, "If I do X, then Y will >> happen and here is the proposed mechanism that allows me to make that >> prediction." >> >> The beliefs of people who disregard scientific findings merely because >> they >> contradict a literal interpretation of their holy book are indeed >> incompatible with science, but this does not make spirituality by >> definition incompatible with science. >> >> Asking "Why?" in a scientific context is really a question about the >> proposed model or mechanism for a set of events." Conversely, when >> someone >> asks "Why?" in a religious or spiritual context, it is a question of >> meaning. Science has nothing do say about meaning? Science can paint a >> pretty detailed picture about a body's responses to being stabbed in the >> heart, but it can't tell us such a stabbing is wrong. >> >> I think what you would say here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is >> that this is the area for philosophy, which you accept as having a role >> alongside science. You might suggest that philosophy is a bit like >> religion, but without all the crazy stories. >> >> Here's the rub: we tend to think in terms of stories. For most people >> today and through history, stories affect us far more powerfully than >> philosophical arguments. They use metaphor, as Emily pointed out. You >> call these metaphors lies. Any metaphor is a lie when taken literally. >> The >> Greek myths you mentioned are still taught and reflected upon, not because >> they are quaint pieces of a time past, but because of the metaphorical >> truth they still hold. Metaphors can convey complex ideas in succinct and >> powerful ways. Alasdair MacIntyre famously said, I cannot tell you what I >> am to do unless I first know of what stories I am a part. We define >> ethical action within the context of stories. >> >> So, while I too rail against misinformation spread by misguided religious >> folks, I am unwilling to write off the religious and the spiritual as an >> important part of the human experience. Some may prefer to couch their >> beliefs in the context of philosophy. That's fine. As a pragmatist, I >> don't care if someone decides to behave environmentally responsibly (say, >> by limiting offspring) because they believe in a Kantian universal law >> regarding the consideration for future generations or because they feel >> that they have a responsibility to treat God's creation well. >> >> I don't believe that your arguments about science are going to help sway >> anyone, who isn't already taking science seriously, to change their ways. >> Rather, it comes off as arrogant and pedantic in the same way that >> "because >> the Bible says so" folks sound to you. >> >> I suppose I'm saying in a very long-winded way, let's not throw the baby >> out with the bathwater. If you've gotten this far in the email, thanks >> for >> reading. >> >> Cheers, >> Richard Plate >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You present science as the only path to Truth. I'm adding the capital T >> there, but I presume since you put spiritual "truth" in >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Christian Vincenot < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 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> >> > > >> > >> > >
