The things they do in the name of religion

[miles teg 1]

More talk that is just redefining religion as awe.

Stop it.  Awe != religion.  

Already dealt with in previous posts; the deep sense of awe, wonder etc we have for the world does not mean we are religious.

Here

That's fine, I didn't say it defined religion.  That's not what I asked.  Read my post again.  I asked whether or not you have or have had any sense of spirituality without worshipping God?  Have you ever sensed some deeper fundamental meaning to life?

If you want to stick to "awe", again have you ever felt "awe" in such a way that it had a powerful and profound impact on your life?   In your response the section of the threat you quoted you say,

"The benefits of religion (many of which may be achieved without religious belief) can include spiritual well-being, charitable works, a sense of meaning and purpose, the bringing together of communities, comfort in times of distress and the (unconfirmed) promise of eternal life after death.

That sounds like some kind of religion to me. Do you believe in those things you mentioned? Do you feel any of those things in your life or are they simply things you see other people doing?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Do you understand what the words 'redefining religion' mean?

I shall clarify this for you:

You are redefining what religion is to mean 'awe and wonder at the universe.' They are not the same thing, as discussed in the earlier post which you might want to read.

[theavonlady 2]

Regarding Hitler and religion, I just saw this in the article The Plot to Assassinate Hitler, July 20, 1944:

Quote[/b] ]Hitler was not dead. Believing God had spared him to avenge Germany on the world, he met with Mussolini later in the day despite wounds to his right arm and a loss of hearing.

Any comments from either side of argumentors here?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Regarding Hitler and religion, I just saw this in the article The Plot to Assassinate Hitler, July 20, 1944:

Quote[/b] ]Hitler was not dead. Believing God had spared him to avenge Germany on the world, he met with Mussolini later in the day despite wounds to his right arm and a loss of hearing.

Any comments from either side of argumentors here?

Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated (and had quite good diplomatic channels with the papacy) - however, he made his own religion from Ayran myths and his own interpretations of the bible.

He frequently made references to his belief that he was some sort of divine messenger, was under the protection of the almighty, was on a divine mission to remove the jews*, etc.

("Who says I am not under the special protection of God?")

He was unquestionably religious. Not unquestionably christian, but unquestionably religious.

*and gypsies, freethinkers, political opponents and athiests

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated (and had quite good diplomatic channels with the papacy) - however, he made his own religion from Ayran myths and his own interpretations of the bible.

I refered to that in my post. This has been proven wrong. The germanic religion you are refering to is called "Thule Orden". But no, that is just a tale!

The article is slightly hiding a little thing though Avon. It refers to him opposing Hitler because he came from an aristocratic background. That is slightly incorrect. In the beginning all industrialists and aristrocrats supported Hitler because he was the only person who had the political chance to beat the german communist party. Of course considering the wealth of aristocrats and industrialists at this time the communists were a real threat to their possessions. A Fatal error. After Hitler executed most communists he turned against them as well. He simply didnt like powerful people, besides himself! My grandpa was from a relatively powerful industrialist family but opened his big mouth a bit too often and gossiped about hitler (couldnt keep his mouth shut just like me) until a friend warned him to leave the country or hide. Thats what he did. "children, pack your things, we go on a long journey!"

Baron, let me repeat once again something that is known fact amongst historians dealing with this era. It cannot be proven that Hitler was a religious man. Before using such terms as "unquestionable" you should post a link to a RENOWNED historian who clearly sais it. I am refering to an author whose point of view is shared by the jewish representatives (Dr. Bernd Kleinhans) in germany, and trust me those people are critical.

 

If hitler said "god saved me", then he didnt say this because he felt it but because he wanted the people to believe it. PROPAGANDA!

Oh and by the way. Hitler wanted to destroy the entire church after the Endsieg!

[Apollo 0]

One of the key figures in operation Albatros? ,the opperation for getting SS and other high German figures out of Germany after the war ,led o.a by Hitlers hero Otto Skorzeny ,was Bishop Romero of Italy.He used his church and adjoining building's as safehouse for the smuggling of German's ,and the majority of German's that got away ,to Argentina for ex. ,got there trough Romero's safehouse.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated (and had quite good diplomatic channels with the papacy) - however, he made his own religion from Ayran myths and his own interpretations of the bible.

I refered to that in my post. This has been proven wrong. The germanic religion you are refering to is called "Thule Orden". But no, that is just a tale!

Baron, let me repeat once again something that is known fact amongst historians dealing with this era. It cannot be proven that Hitler was a religious man. Before using such terms as "unquestionable" you should post a link to a RENOWNED historian who clearly sais it. I am refering to an author whose point of view is shared by the jewish representatives (Dr. Bernd Kleinhans) in germany, and trust me those people are critical.

If hitler said "god saved me", then he didnt say this because he felt it but because he wanted the people to believe it. PROPAGANDA!

Oh and by the way. Hitler wanted to destroy the entire church after the Endsieg!

Please post some evidence that hitler was excommunicated from the church. Until then, stop making things up.

I referred to hitlers religion in my post. It was a religion.

Quote[/b] ]THE DICTIONARY

# Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

# A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

Anyone who says Hitler was not religious is either a liar or a hypocrite.

90% of the discussions on whether he was religious or not are to do with if he was a CHRISTIAN or not, which is not the same question.

Oh by the way; the catholic church was the organisation 'most responsible' for getting Nazis out of europe to other countries after the war.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Anyone who says Hitler was not religious is either a liar or a hypocrite.

Watch out what you are saying!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I refered to a scientific source and you just say no. Call me hypocrite, but you failed miserably. I bet you wasted hours to search for a source that would proof my source wrong but you couldnt find anything!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Anyone who says Hitler was not religious is either a liar or a hypocrite.

Find a source that says he was not religious, not 'not christian.'

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Baron, stop being childish.

You tried to convince us that he was relgious, that he was even was a member of a very old germanic cult.

My statement to that was

Quote[/b] ]Two things are proven: hitler did not believe in the "Thule-orden" (germanic religion). And secondly, there is no real indicator for Hitler being a true believer

.

And I even refered to a historian who is actually competent enough to answer the question (or admit that it cant be answered). Insisting that these historians must be wrong doesnt make you right.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Hitlers religion was of his OWN devising, not the thule orden stuff; although he did incorporate elements of that into it.

Really, grow up, admit it.

There is no WAY hitler was not religious. By any definition he was.

He may not have been a christian (which is debatable, and is what most historians debate about) - but he was, indisputably, religious.

Evidence for Hitler being religious:

Irrational views about the universe

repeated, constant references to biblical prophecy/ stories

Repeated, enforced claims to be doing 'gods work'

Absolutely insisting that all soldiers in the German Army pledge to God (Himmler did a similar thing with the SS)

The phrase 'Gott mit uns' on Nazi regalia/ items

Irrational hatred of other religions / irrational action towards those of a specific religion.

FAITH/ BELIEF in his ideology. Non-religious people do not have absolute faith/ belief.

I think you are minsunderstanding the historians. Once again; you are confusing Hitler not being christian with Hitler not being religious. There is a difference.

The Church had severe problems with the Nazi party before it came to power (as it was gaining support) - they attempted to put people off it by claiming it was 'anti-religious' - by which they meant anti-what they said.

""I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history."" -Hitler

[Pathy 0]

Anyone who says Hitler was not religious is either a liar or a hypocrite.

Find a source that says he was not religious, not 'not christian.'

Ahh the old "im right, your wrong, end of argument" attack. Nice one.

Is this merely an extension of the "barron believes there is no good to come of religion" debate? And now he is trying to say that Hitler invaded the rest of Europe and slaughtered 6 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, ect, because he was religious? I dont think you can blame religion for any of that. You can blame greed. But you cant blame religion.

I am prepared to argue that point further but wont unless aksed (provoked )

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Ahh the old "im right, your wrong, end of argument" attack. Nice one.

No, the old "the facts point to this' argument.

Regardless of how many people disagree due to their beliefs, the earth is an Oblate Geoid. It is not flat. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Same thing.

Quote[/b] ]

Is this merely an extension of the "barron believes there is no good to come of religion" debate? And now he is trying to say that Hitler invaded the rest of Europe and slaughtered 6 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, ect, because he was religious?

No. Read the thread.

Quote[/b] ]

I dont think you can blame religion for any of that. You can blame greed. But you cant blame religion.

You don't think so. No evidence for why you don't.....you just don't.

Hitlers religion is what drove him; his irrational beliefs. What other explanation is there? He believed to be doing the work of god. He was also driven by greed and ambition.

Quote[/b] ]

I am prepared to argue that point further but wont unless aksed (provoked )

You are prepared to do some more trolling without reading the thread, you mean.

Hitler was unquestionably religious. His religion was not, IMO, the overall thing which led to the atrocities and 'evil' that resulted - but it was a contributing factor; it was part of it.

Hitler (and National Socialism) had problems with the Catholic church in germany- but not the Catholic church in Rome, who signed a concordant with them in 1930 telling the German Catholic church to fall into line.

Hitler thought of himself as a christian, and by many definitions he was one. Definition: One who believes Jesus Christ was the messiah = Hitler is Christian. Definition: One who follows their own interpretation of the bible and the words of Christ = Hitler was a christian. Definition: one who does as a church says = Hitler was not a christian ... but then a great many people nowadays would not be christians.

But he was, definitely, religious.

[Placebo 29]

BH you've been getting that bad attitude going again for a number of posts, please refrain.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

-)

[Pathy 0]

I dont need to read the whole thread to argue that Hitler was not motivated by ANY religion to do what he did.

Hilter may have been religious, but i have severe doubt that it was his motivation. The pope is religious but im sure it doesnt motivate him to take a piss every morning. Instead, Hitler was driven more by a combination of belief, greed and ambition.

Belief that the aryan race was supreme. He used religion to try to secure this belief. It was means to an end. Aquiring religous artifacts and promoting them as gods true people was merely a means to promote the Aryan race.

Greed and ambition. He wanted to restore Germanys pride after WW1. Dont forget he was a soldier, like many WW1 soldiers he felt betrayed by the leadership back home for the loss, and was understandably sore at the treaty of Versailles. In the process, gaining an Empire and destroying his hated enemies the communists in the process was another motivation for Hitler.

And your trying to tell me that it was none of these that was the real reason he went to war with Europe?

I am infact, not sure what you are trying to say, you condradict yourself. Maybe your not sure what you are trying to say?

Quote[/b] ]Hitlers religion is what drove him; his irrational beliefs. What other explanation is there? He believed to be doing the work of god. He was also driven by greed and ambition.

Quote[/b] ]His religion was not, IMO, the overall thing which led to the atrocities and 'evil' that resulted - but it was a contributing factor; it was part of it.

So hang on, are you saying religion was the main reason, and there were also other factors, or are you now acknowledging other factors were more important?

I may not read the entire thread but at least i read my own post to iron out contradictions

Quote[/b] ]Regardless of how many people disagree due to their beliefs, the earth is an Oblate Geoid. It is not flat. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Same thing.

Aha and have you considered you could be on a par with those who insisted it was scientific fact the world was flat before being disproved? IMO your mind is too closed to everyone else. Just because YOU think something is fact, doesnt mean it is, and maybe you should spend more time listening to what others have to say before dismissing thier ideas out of hand.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I dont need to read the whole thread to argue that Hitler was not motivated by ANY religion to do what he did.

Hilter may have been religious, but i have severe doubt that it was his motivation. The pope is religious but im sure it doesnt motivate him to take a piss every morning. Instead, Hitler was driven more by a combination of belief, greed and ambition.

Belief that the aryan race was supreme.

....

'hitler was not motivated by his religion..... he was motivated by his beliefs'

You don't see anything wrong with that statement?

His beliefs were part of his religion. His religion was what gave him those beliefs. Beliefs are a part of religion- irreligious people do not have beliefs in that sense.

Quote[/b] ]

And your trying to tell me that it was none of these that was the real reason he went to war with Europe?

Maybe if you read the post, you'd see what I was trying to tell you.

Quote[/b] ]

I am infact, not sure what you are trying to say, you condradict yourself. Maybe your not sure what you are trying to say?

I think it is you who is contradicting yourself.

Quote[/b] ]Hitlers religion is what drove him; his irrational beliefs. What other explanation is there? He believed to be doing the work of god. He was also driven by greed and ambition.

Quote[/b] ]His religion was not, IMO, the overall thing which led to the atrocities and 'evil' that resulted - but it was a contributing factor; it was part of it.

I'll try to simplify this, because it has apparently gone over your head.

Hitler was driven by a combination of his religion, his greed and his ambition. The evil that resulted was started by hitler but was ultimately mainly done by other people who did not share his religion; therefore it wasn't responsible overall. It certainly had a contributing factor - but it wasn't the sole thing.

Quote[/b] ]

So hang on, are you saying religion was the main reason, and there were also other factors, or are you now acknowledging other factors were more important?

Read the post and see.

I may not read the entire thread but at least i read my own post to iron out contradictions

Minus the huge contradictions. - Beliefs being seperate from religion, etc.

Quote[/b] ]Regardless of how many people disagree due to their beliefs, the earth is an Oblate Geoid. It is not flat. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Same thing.

Aha and have you considered you could be on a par with those who insisted it was scientific fact the world was flat before being disproved? IMO your mind is too closed to everyone else. Just because YOU think something is fact, doesnt mean it is, and maybe you should spend more time listening to what others have to say before dismissing thier ideas out of hand.

IMO some people's minds are so open that they fill up with all sorts of rubbish.

When everyone believed the world was flat, there was no such thing as scientific fact. The fact that the world is flat is not going to change. It is simply wrong. Not 'in my opinion it is wrong' - it is wrong in reality.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]'hitler was not motivated by his religion..... he was motivated by his beliefs'

You don't see anything wrong with that statement?

His beliefs were part of his religion. His religion was what gave him those beliefs. Beliefs are a part of religion- irreligious people do not have beliefs in that sense.

That was a trap i was waiting for you to fall into.

Belief is not the same as religion. I believe the world is round, but my belief is not taken from religion. You probably belief OFP is a good game, does that have anything to do with religion?.......don't think so mate....

Quote[/b] ]Maybe if you read the post, you'd see what I was trying to tell you.

Maybe i did read the post......as i said, you are contradicting yourself

One moment:

Quote[/b] ]Hitlers religion is what drove him; his irrational beliefs. What other explanation is there? He believed to be doing the work of god. He was also driven by greed and ambition.

the next:

Quote[/b] ]His religion was not, IMO, the overall thing which led to the atrocities and 'evil' that resulted - but it was a contributing factor; it was part of it.

So one minute your saying religion was the main factor, the next your saying it wasnt. Thats what i call contradiction.

Quote[/b] ]I think it is you who is contradicting yourself.

I have pointed out where YOU are contradicting yourself, now kindly point out where i am contradicting myself? (or was it the religion= beliefs thing, which was a trap you clumsily fell into?)

Although maybe that will go over YOUR head.

Now, that aside, can we agree that you cant blame religion for Hitler? IMO, and maybe only IMO, it was belief, not religion, that drove hitler to do what he did, combined with greed and ambition...even if Hitler was religious, as im sure he was, it doesnt mean that it was even a minute factor in what he did.....

Quote[/b] ]IMO some people's minds are so open that they fill up with all sorts of rubbish.

When everyone believed the world was flat, there was no such thing as scientific fact.

So how did science progress if there was no such thing as scientific fact?

Truth is, at the time, they believed it to be scientific fact. Things that were believed to be scientific fact in the 50's and 60's have been discarded. "Scientific facts" change all the time. You thinking todays "scientific fact" is the be all and end all makes you as narrow minded as those people who insisted the world was flat all those years ago........

I enjoy sparring with you Baron, but please don't try and patronise me. I don't like it, and youve already had several(!) warning (and a ban) from the mods over your attitude to other forum members (it seems we are all retards to your mind), so i guess they dont like it either.

For example, this is not needed.

Quote[/b] ]I'll try to simplify this, because it has apparently gone over your head.

Lets not make it personal.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX- Thanks belatedly for the condensing post of April 17 on page 20. It was much more helpful to my understanding (at least) of where you are coming from than monosyllabic or insulting replies (to which it is unfortunate that you appear to be returning).

---

Spain seeks to control what imams preach(-guardian)

Quote[/b] ]"The Spanish government is considering censoring the sermons of Muslim imams in an attempt to control the spread of radical Islamic ideas - a move that has been criticised as a lurch towards authoritarianism.

The interior minister, JosÄ Antonio Alonso, suggested the plan, which could also see a requirement that all preachers in mosques be registered.

Mr Alonso told El País newspaper at the weekend: "We really need to improve the laws to control Islamic radicals. We need to get to a legal situation in which we can control the imams in small mosques. That is where the Islamic fundamentalism which lead to certain actions is disseminated."

Yesterday he warned Islamic groups that "religious freedom should not be used for other means".

The plan has received high level backing. The foreign affairs minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, told Telecinco: "It is important that we know what is said in the Friday sermon. Mosques have sprung up in Spain in a completely uncontrolled fashion."

Earlier Mr Alonso had mooted the establishment of a register for the control of religious activities for all religions and not just Islam.

"The register would clearly state who is responsible for leading worship and what type of worship will take place," the interior minister said.

The plan to censor the content of sermons poses practical problems, not least because Islamic sermons tend to be improvised and in Arabic.

Angel Acebes, the former interior minister and now deputy leader of the opposition People's Party, asked: "Is the interior ministry going to read thousands of sermons from priests and imams each week?"

He said reintroducing censorship "would be wrong and runs counter to the constitution", adding that the the proposal was rash and had been given little thought.

Muslim leaders, however, were more confused than angry. Mansur Escudero, the president of the Islamic Council, said the idea was a knee-jerk reaction to public concern about terrorism, and demonstrated ignorance of Islamic practice.

He said: "I'm bewildered. The proposals are just surreal. I never thought that a socialist minister with a progressive attitude and respect for the constitution would launch such an attack on religious freedom."

This seems like a pretty cackhanded and uncharacteric attempt at responding to the Madrid attacks. Seems a bit like Zapatero is looking for some way to prove hes not soft on islamic terrorism.

In way its the opposite of the situation in Acecombats original post. Instead of individual religious extremists (or groups) trying to silence a moderate or non traditional voice of islam

or supposed 'enemy of religion', it is the state trying to silence the 'enemy within religion' in the form of such extremists by registering and recording all religious output in the country (which seems slightly ludicrous).

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

That was a trap i was waiting for you to fall into.

Belief is not the same as religion. I believe the world is round, but my belief is not taken from religion. You probably belief OFP is a good game, does that have anything to do with religion?.......don't think so mate....

That was something I was wondering if you would erroneously bring up, and you did.

You are confusing two different usages of 'belief.' The religious 'faith' belief and the everyday use.

I did take the trouble of saying faith/ belief to show you which one I was talking about.

Faith belief IS the same as religion. Its basically 'Claiming absolute certainty in something without any reasons to do so.'

Everyday 'belief' is not the same thing - and I'd go as far as to say I don't have any beliefs. Its more like 'things we think are true, but don't have a problem with if shown to be wrong.' For example, people do not kill each other over these types of belief. They do over religious beliefs (extremists, that is :P )

So: wrong. Sorry.

Quote[/b] ]

So one minute your saying religion was the main factor, the next your saying it wasnt. Thats what i call contradiction.

That's what I call deliberately not reading a post.

HITLERS religion was what drove HITLER. (first quote)

The rest of the German state, which actually carried out the deeds, was not driven by Hitlers religion. (second quote.)

Is this clear now?

Quote[/b] ]

I have {wrongly} pointed out where YOU are contradicting yourself, now kindly point out where i am contradicting myself? (or was it the religion= beliefs thing, which was a trap you clumsily fell into?)

Again, this was quite clear in the other post. Religion and religious beliefs are the same thing. Religion and 'things we think are probably true' are not the same thing and you contradicted yourself.

Quote[/b] ]

Now, that aside, can we agree that you cant blame religion for Hitler?

Yes. We can, and should, however, blames Hitler's religion for Hitler's beliefs, actions and persecutions

Quote[/b] ]

IMO, and maybe only IMO, it was belief, not religion, that drove hitler to do what he did, combined with greed and ambition...even if Hitler was religious, as im sure he was, it doesnt mean that it was even a minute factor in what he did.....

Indeed, someone's being religious is not nessesarily a factor in what they do.... but in Hitler's case it was.

Quote[/b] ]

So how did science progress if there was no such thing as scientific fact?

There wasn't any 'science' per se. You may want to do some studying on the subject if you think science has been around for more than a couple of hundred years.

Quote[/b] ]

Truth is, at the time, they believed it to be scientific fact. Things that were believed to be scientific fact in the 50's and 60's have been discarded. "Scientific facts" change all the time. You thinking todays "scientific fact" is the be all and end all makes you as narrow minded as those people who insisted the world was flat all those years ago........

Wrong again. You are extremely confused about how science works.

The whole point of science is that it is self-correcting. Errors, problems and mistaken theories are superceded by more accurate ones. Ones that explain the facts better. The facts themselves, however, do not change. Tenous theories with holes in them are gradually refined to become solid, working models and may eventually become 'laws.'

There is absolutely no chance that the sun will suddenly be found to be going round the earth. None. If you cannot understand that, please, please, learn some more about it instead of spouting these heckles.

Quote[/b] ]

Best of The Web

Hall of Mirrors

Richard Dawkins, Forbes ASAP, 10.02.00

A little learning is a dangerous thing. This has never struck me as a particularly profound or wise remark, but it comes into its own when that little learning is in philosophy. A scientist who has the temerity to utter the t-word--true--is likely to encounter philosophical heckling that goes something like this:

"There is no absolute truth. You are committing an act of personal faith when you claim that the scientific method, including mathematics and logic, is the privileged road to truth. Other cultures might believe that truth is to be found in a rabbit's entrails or the ravings of a prophet atop a pole. It is only your personal faith in science that leads you to favor your brand of truth."

That strand of half-baked philosophy goes by the name of cultural relativism. It is one aspect of the Fashionable Nonsense detected by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, or the Higher Superstition of Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt. The feminist version is ably exposed by Noretta Koertge, coauthor of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies:

Women's Studies students are now being taught that logic is a tool of domination. ...The standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they are incompatible with "women's ways of knowing." ...These "subjectivist" women see the methods of logic, analysis, and abstraction as "alien territory belonging to men" and "value intuition as a safer and more fruitful approach to truth."

How should scientists respond to the allegation that our "faith" in logic and scientific truth is just that--faith--not "privileged" over alternative truths? An obvious response is that science gets results. As I once wrote, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet, and I'll show you a hypocrite. ...If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there--the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field--is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right." Science supports its claim to truth by its spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops, and to predict what will happen and when.

But let's go further: Is it just our Western scientific bias to be impressed by accurate prediction, to be impressed by the power to sling rockets around Jupiter to reach Saturn, or intercept and repair the Hubble telescope, to be impressed by logic itself? Well, let's concede the point and think sociologically, even democratically. Suppose we agree, temporarily, to treat scientific truth as just one truth among many, and lay it alongside all the rival contenders: Trobriand truth, Kikuyu truth, Maori truth, Inuit truth, Navajo truth, Yanomamo truth, !Kung San truth, feminist truth, Islamic truth, Hindu truth. The list is endless--and thereby hangs a revealing observation. In theory, people could switch allegiance from any one "truth" to any other if they decided it had greater merit. On what basis might they do so? Why would one change from, say, Kikuyu truth to Navajo truth? Such merit-driven switches are rare--with one crucially important exception: switches to scientific truth from any of the others. Scientific truth is the only member of this endless list that evidentially convinces converts of its superiority. People are loyal to other belief systems because they were brought up that way, and they have never known anything better. When people are lucky enough to be offered the opportunity to vote with their feet, doctors prosper and shamans decline. Even those who do not, or cannot, avail themselves of a scientific education choose to benefit from technology made possible by the scientific education of others.

As religious missionaries claim converts in the underdeveloped world, they succeed not because of the merits of their religion but because of the science-based technology for which it is pardonably, but wrongly, given credit. You can imagine the tribal warrior thinking, "Surely the Christian God must be superior to our Juju, because Christ's representatives come bearing rifles, telescopes, chain saws, radios, almanacs that predict eclipses to the minute, and medicines that work."

So much for cultural relativism. A second type of truth-heckler prefers to drop the name of Karl Popper or, more fashionably, Thomas Kuhn. According to their arguments, there is no absolute truth. Scientific truths are merely hypotheses that have so far failed to be falsified and are destined to be superseded. At worst, after the next scientific revolution, today's "truths" will seem quaint and absurd, if not actually false. In this view, the best we scientists can hope for is a series of approximations that progressively reduce errors but never eliminate them.

The Popperian heckle partly stems from the accidental fact that philosophers of science are obsessed with one piece of scientific history: the comparison between Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation. It is true that Newton's simple inverse square law has turned out to be an approximation, a special case of Einstein's more general formula. If this is the only piece of scientific history you know, you might indeed conclude that all apparent truths are mere approximations, fated to be superseded.

There is even a quite interesting sense in which all our sensory perceptions may be regarded as unfalsified hypotheses about the world, vulnerable to change. This provides a good way to think about illusions, such as the Necker Cube.

The flat pattern of ink on paper is compatible with two alternative hypotheses of solidity. We see a solid cube that, after a few seconds, flips to a different cube, then flips back to the first cube, and so on. Thus, goes the argument, sense-data may only confirm or reject mental hypotheses about what is out there. We are lost in a cognitive hall of mirrors, never able to escape our reflection to see the real world.

This line of thought--that all our percepts are hypothetical models in the brain--might lead us to fear for our descendants when the blurring between reality and illusion will be even more pronounced, thanks to computers capable of generating vivid models of their own. But what is new about any of this? Without venturing into the high tech worlds of virtual reality, we already know that our senses are easily deceived. Magicians and professional illusionists can persuade us that, if we lack a skeptical foothold in reality, something supernatural is going on. Indeed, some notorious erstwhile conjurers have made a fat living doing exactly that--a living much fatter than they ever enjoyed when they frankly admitted that they were faking it.

Scientists, alas, are not best equipped to unmask telepathists, mediums, and spoon-bending charlatans. This is a job best handled by professionals, and that means other conjurers. The lesson that conjurers, the honest variety and the impostors, teach us is that an uncritical faith in our own sense organs is not an infallible guide to truth.

Fine, but none of these theories undermines our understanding of what it means for something to be true. If I am in the witness box and prosecuting counsel wags his finger sternly and demands, "Is it or is it not true that you were in Chicago on the night of the murder?" I should get pretty short shrift if I replied, "What do you mean by true?" Or, reverting to the first heckle, I would not expect a jury, even a Bongolese jury, to give a sympathetic hearing to my plea, "It is only in your Western scientific sense of the word in that I was in Chicago. The Bongolese have a completely different concept of in, according to which you are only truly in a place if you are an anointed elder entitled to take snuff from the dried scrotum of a goat."

It is simply true that the sun is hotter than the earth, true that the desk on which I am writing is made of wood. These are not hypotheses awaiting falsification, not temporary approximations of an ever elusive truth, not local truths that might be denied in another culture. They are just plain true. It is forever true that DNA is a double helix, true that if you and a chimpanzee (or an octopus or a kangaroo) trace your ancestors back far enough, you will eventually hit a shared ancestor.

To a pedant, these are still hypotheses that might be falsified tomorrow. But they never will be. Strictly, the truth that there were no human beings in the Jurassic era is still a conjecture, which could be refuted at any time by the discovery of a single human fossil, authentically dated by a battery of radiometric methods. It could happen. Want to bet? These are just truths, even if they are nominally hypotheses on probation. They are true in exactly the same sense as the ordinary truths of everyday life are true, true in the same sense as it is true that you have a head and that my desk is wooden. If scientific truth is open to philosophic doubt, it is no more so than commonsense truth. Let's at least be evenhanded in our philosophical heckling.

But now, having refuted the two most common attacks on the scientific concept of truth, let me present another, more difficult challenge. It is that science is very much not synonymous with common sense. Admittedly, that doughty scientific hero Thomas H. Huxley said:

Science is nothing but trained and organized common sense, differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only as far as the guardsman's cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club.

But Huxley was talking about the methods of science, not its conclusions. And those conclusions can be disturbingly counterintuitive. Quantum theory is counterintuitive to the point where the physicist sometimes seems to be battling insanity. We are asked to believe that a single quantum behaves like a particle in going through one hole instead of another but simultaneously behaves like a wave in interfering with a nonexistent copy of itself, if another hole is opened through which that nonexistent copy could have traveled (if it had existed).

It gets worse, to the point where some physicists resort to a vast number of parallel but mutually unreachable worlds that proliferate to accommodate every alternative quantum event. Other physicists, equally desperate, suggest that quantum events are determined retrospectively by our decision to examine their consequences. Quantum theory strikes us as so weird, so defiant of common sense, that even the great physicist Richard Feynman was moved to remark, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Yet the many predictions by which quantum theory has been tested stand up, with an accuracy so stupendous that Feynman compared it to measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles accurately to the width of one human hair. On the basis of these stunningly successful predictions, quantum theory, or some version of it, seems to be as true as anything we know.

Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

"The Spanish government is considering censoring the sermons of Muslim imams in an attempt to control the spread of radical Islamic ideas - a move that has been criticised as a lurch towards authoritarianism.

I think this is a very bad idea. You cannot force things like this.

The only way to persuade people that religious violence is wrong is by allowing them to think for themselves, not telling them what to think like those who want them to create violence.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Yet this seems not utterly different from suggestions you made yourself about how to deal with religion earlier in this thread (or was it in the previous religion thread?) though i admit you appeared to moderate (or clarify) your position afterwards*.

Anyway i agree with you its a bad idea. Toleration, thats the whole point, there are billions of religious believers and if one is not tolerant of their existence (whilst feeling able to argue strongly against them of course) then it invites a vast and dangerous confrontation. State intervention must be a last resort in my opinion.

[theavonlady 2]

"The Spanish government is considering censoring the sermons of Muslim imams in an attempt to control the spread of radical Islamic ideas - a move that has been criticised as a lurch towards authoritarianism.

I think this is a very bad idea.  You cannot force things like this.

The only way to persuade people that religious violence is wrong is by allowing them to think for themselves, not telling them what to think like those who want them to create violence.

Then if someone totally irreligious stands up on a soap box and preaches and advocates harm against another person in front of another crowd, you believe that this should be tollerated and permitted?

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Pathy @ May 05 2004,00:06)

"That was a trap i was waiting for you to fall into.

Belief is not the same as religion. I believe the world is round, but my belief is not taken from religion. You probably belief OFP is a good game, does that have anything to do with religion?.......don't think so mate.... "

That was something I was wondering if you would erroneously bring up, and you did.

You are confusing two different usages of 'belief.'  The religious 'faith' belief and the everyday use.

I did take the trouble of saying faith/ belief to show you which one I was talking about.  

Faith belief IS the same as religion.  Its basically 'Claiming absolute certainty in something without any reasons to do so.'  

Everyday 'belief' is not the same thing - and I'd go as far as to say I don't have any beliefs.  Its more like 'things we think are true, but don't have a problem with if shown to be wrong.'  For example, people do not kill each other over these types of belief.  They do over religious beliefs (extremists, that is :P )

So: wrong.  Sorry.

Lol, well how can i be wrong? I was the one who brought belief up, you just twisted its meaning to be religious belief. I never said religious belief, its not my fault if YOU decide to deliberately not read a post. Lets go through it again

Quote[/b] ]'hitler was not motivated by his religion..... he was motivated by his beliefs'

You don't see anything wrong with that statement?

His beliefs were part of his religion.  His religion was what gave him those beliefs.  Beliefs are a part of religion- irreligious people do not have beliefs in that sense.

I specified BELIEFS. Not RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Just BELIEF. It is YOU who is confusing the meanings of beliefs. So how you can come back at me and say i am the one mixing the meanings of belief up, i do not know......

....some people will do anything than accept they made a mistake...... ....

Quote[/b] ]I did take the trouble of saying faith/ belief to show you which one I was talking about.  

Oh and btw, you didnt mention "faith" anywhere in your post.

Wrong again.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote  

Quote[/b] ]I have {Quite Rightly} pointed out where YOU are contradicting yourself, now kindly point out where i am contradicting myself? (or was it the religion= beliefs thing, which was a trap you clumsily fell into?)

Again, this was quite clear in the other post.  Religion and religious beliefs are the same thing.  Religion and 'things we think are probably true' are not the same thing and you contradicted yourself.

As i pointed out earlier, religion and belief are not the same thing. As i said, i believe OFP is a good game, doesnt affect my religion in any way.......I already clarified that......so i hardly think im contradicting myself.

Quote[/b] ]You are confusing two different usages of 'belief.'  The religious 'faith' belief and the everyday use.

No, as ive already said, you are the one who is confused. I knew what i meant when i posted about Hilters beliefs (not his RELIGIOUS beliefs), you obviously didnt.....either that or you were trying to be clever, which failed considerably......

Quote[/b] ]So: wrong.  Sorry.

Whoops, your the wrong party here

Quote[/b] ]There wasn't any 'science' per se.  You may want to do some studying on the subject if you think science has been around for more than a couple of hundred years.

I do study the subject, thats how i know that some form of science has been around alot longer than 200 years.

For example:

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/referen....06.html

Information on Liebig, the guy who designed the Liebig condenser, its a standard bit of lab kit used in distillations if you dont know. He was around in 1826, and Chemistry existed then. It had been practiced for many years before that, into the 1700's i know for sure.

Unless your trying to tell me Chemistry isnt a science......  

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Truth is, at the time, they believed it to be scientific fact. Things that were believed to be scientific fact in the 50's and 60's have been discarded. "Scientific facts" change all the time. You thinking todays "scientific fact" is the be all and end all makes you as narrow minded as those people who insisted the world was flat all those years ago........

Wrong again.  You are extremely confused about how science works.

The whole point of science is that it is self-correcting.  Errors, problems and mistaken theories are superceded by more accurate ones.  Ones that explain the facts better.  The facts themselves, however, do not change.  Tenous theories with holes in them are gradually refined to become solid, working models and may eventually become 'laws.'  

There is absolutely no chance that the sun will suddenly be found to be going round the earth.  None.  If you cannot understand that, please, please, learn some more about it instead of spouting these heckles.

Ok, youve just told me im wrong, and then using different words just told me exactly what i just said.

What is believed to be correct theory at one point in time will be superceded, i gave an example that commonly acknowledged theories in the 50's and 60's are now discarded for better ones...

Let me give you one example of "Scientific Fact" being discarded. Kekule Ring structure of Benzene. Was believed to be the solution. Later disproved. It was still regarded as scientific fact at the time, but it was discarded later as a close attempt

Are you so desperate that you fall back on to quoting my own argument at me in different words? Then procede to act as if it was your argument in the first place?

Because thats all i see you doing. BTW, stop editing quotes (by adding extra words in) to suit your own purposes, its not a good basis for an honest discussion.......

[Major Fubar 0]

I dont need to read the whole thread to argue that Hitler was not motivated by ANY religion to do what he did.

Hilter may have been religious, but i have severe doubt that it was his motivation. The pope is religious but im sure it doesnt motivate him to take a piss every morning. Instead, Hitler was driven more by a combination of belief, greed and ambition.

Belief that the aryan race was supreme.

....

'hitler was not motivated by his religion..... he was motivated by his beliefs'

You don't see anything wrong with that statement?

His beliefs were part of his religion.  His religion was what gave him those beliefs.  Beliefs are a part of religion- irreligious people do not have beliefs in that sense.

There are plenty of White-supremacists and other racists out there that also happen to be atheists and agnostics...

There are also plenty of Christians who aren't remotely racist...

I don't think that logic dictates that Hitler was a racist/supremacist because of his religious beliefs.