It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
If I look into the recent reports concerning abuse by members of the church I cannot escape the lack of responsibility of members of government when abuse was reported, it was swept under the carpet by church & other parties alike. And even now some people are not taken serious when they come forward, especially when it concerns bishops. Why?- Simple because some other figures in authority share in the blame even if it consists of looking the other way.
And lets face it how many people even in a democracy do not vote against their own interests because of a believe in something or somebody. How the likes of Trump or Geert Wilders get so many votes is for me the simple proof that men can and will be manipulated by creating false images about certain groups. It is the bloody pogroms all over again.
Tell that to the likes of Dr. Mengele his experiments were pure science and was gobbled up after WWII by the allied forces.
Too much?
What about the scientific jumps forward in lets say WWII in better and faster ways to kill the opposition. Morally neutral my foot.
A stick is morally neutral. If you save someone from drowning with it or kill someone that has a new SP BD you want badly, THAT'S when it takes on a moral significance.
Exactly. Science is completely morally blind. Weapons are a product of technology and scientific discoveries. So are vaccines, antibiotics, etc.
The things you allude to are human errors / choices. Humans are obviously not morally neutral, but the pure science (ie. knowldge) surely is.
Perhaps weapons do fall under the latter, as I don't honestly think a water-tight valid argument can be made as to the benefit of weapons per se - as one form of technology does not necessarily exclude another - ie. you can't for certain argue that radiotherapy would not have been invented without the atom bomb coming first...
Ultimately, I am on the side of science. It has and continues to do far more good than harm and is essential to our surviving as a species. I also realize that practically not everyone is a critical thinker, and they shouldn't be expected to be. The world is interesting because we have thinkers and we have feelers - emoters and rational ones. Both have their plus points and minus points.
Additionally, the human mind (even a very intelligent & educated one) can delude itself. People like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney are not stupid. Neither was Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. I'd wager that they were more intelligent than many of us on this forum. Yet they are guilty of immense atrocities.
Moreover, many in certain parts of the world do not have the benefit of a good education and are not taught critical thinking skills - it is a skill and it can be learned if taught early enough, like everything - but it's not enough.
Exactly.
----
I'm not suggesting that organized religion is a solution for "morality", but perhaps it is as good a means as any to control to the masses and maintain order & cohesion in certain kinds of environments (particularly uneducated and immature ones) until the society matures and evolves (understanding that not everyone is a critical thinker and human beings are subject to individual and collective fears and biases). So religion perhaps does have its purpose within confined limits.
Having said that, Western societies should know better by now, as we have the benefit of good education and the benefit of moral clarity (if we think clearly and apply the Golden Rule).
I have always found that the following tends to be the right approach in any given situation and when faced with any decision:
1. Is there a debate on the issue?
2. has the debate been open? I.e. is anyone being restricted from expressing themselves or being involved?
3. are all participants keeping an open mind and being open to different views from their own?
4. is all the information available or are there restrictions being put on information?
5. has anyone put themselves in the position of the other (contrary) viewpoint and tried to argue from that end?
6. is there any fear mongering or what can be labelled fear mongering?
7. Is there hiding behind 'general rules' or 'general doctrine' without viewing the specific circumstances being discussed?
8. is anyone trying to shut down debate or discussion or threatening to run away? Or being unnecessarily abusive and insulting? - this is a red flag for me.
Thank you for your post, friend. To be honest, I fail to see where we disagree, at least in your first couple of paragraphs. I too have often stated that religion has always been a means to answer big questions and also a tool to keep people under control. This - correct me if I'm wrong - is what you're saying as well. Where (I think) we disagree is whether religion can, even in that capacity, still be endorsed today.
It doesn't really matter if one considers one or many gods to be at the helm of everything that happens in the universe. Science, since Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton... has become increasingly more successful in demonstrating that the universe doesn't require a deity to work, nor to be born, even if some of the most revered scientists, like Newton, were themselves pretty big supporters of Faith. Unlike what many religious folks with a strong appetite for the anti-science persuasion claim, science doesn't even try to disprove God because God cannot be defined and therefore is of absolutely no interest to any scientific discipline. Science, however, tries to refute the notion that there must be a God to account for all that has happened, will happen and is. Incidentally, it has been exceptionally successful at doing that and continues to be. The sad part is that science, while not hidden in sectarian obscurity, proves difficult to reach everybody on this planet. People without access to education, without a basic interest in science or without the talent to understand how it works - and I don't mean that in a condescending way - cannot be taught about the quantum, about the Big Bang, about Evolution, about relativity. Simple answers to philosophical questions come in the shape of "God wills it", rather than in the form of quantum mechanical models, physical equations and mathematical principles. I understand why this is so and why it will be difficult if not impossible to ever change that. But lacking a critical perception on things, or being denied the right to be critical by outside forces, many just comfortably go with the dictated flow. In a time when the powers that be demonstrate their ability for making very bad decisions with an almost perverse sense of pride, the last thing we need is a population of intellectual slaves, hanging on the lips of someone whose only concern is either absolute dominion over the North-African oil wells or his next four-year term. We need people who don't take spoken or written words for granted but who get out there, observe things, then process the information and draw their own conclusions or none at all if more testing and observing is required. In many parts of the world as well as in many so-called civilised households, religion kills every form of critical thinking. Well, it may have been perfectly okay in the Dark Ages - though I doubt that myself - but in the 21st century, we have to come to our senses if we wish to survive as a species. Too many people who could benefit from each others' talents and skills still refuse to cooperate or even live next door, simply because one prays to Jesus and the other to Muhammed. In conclusion, what may have been acceptable or even beneficial - I don't know - in the past, in my opinion isn't any more.
I agree that there are always people behind every religion, pulling the strings. Even the Belgium-based terrorists who committed the atrocities in Paris were anything but virtuous. They were known for doing a lot of booze, taking shiploads of drugs and engaging in some pretty promiscuous behaviour. So of course in the end it's never about God, Allah or Elvis; it's always about politics, power, madness. In hundreds of years, not once has Allah appeared on television or radio to address his worshippers. Only long-bearded "spokesmen" of Allah have. God spoke to Mozes through some burning bushes but is incompatible with the Internet? God doesn't blog but preachers do in His name? I almost went Hulk on a guy who posted something on some social medium in my name one day; I wonder why Allah or God haven't set those bloggers' houses on fire yet; why they haven't come down the digital chimney to bless us with Wikideity, the go-to pages for those who seek the "truth". Wait, I know, because religion is manufactured by people, kept alive by people and most importantly, abused by people. Again, can we endorse this in the 21st century? Some countries are brave enough to drag Scientology to court, despite Ethan Hunt being a member. So when will they do the same with the Church? Since we can all admit that the people behind those religions are either mad or dangerous or both, it would be for the betterment of us all. The 60s were all about burning a bra. I suggest today we start burning all the symbols of the greatest lie ever passed on from father to son: that the universe was created by supreme beings. No harm done; it'll only affect people who are either directly or indirectly responsible for oppressing innocents based on gender or race, stealing from the poor, taking other people's land and worst of all, keeping our natural curiosity and quest for knowledge in a frozen state. The 'fact' that worshipping an emperor or god or whatever as the absolute personification of perfection keeps a population obedient and united, doesn't condone anything. Rather, it demonstrates, as so many other things do, our sad foolishness; we may not be immortal but our stupidity unfortunately is. If we need an instrument of deceit to keep the world under control, I'd rather see chaos among the intellectually free. Besides, we already have 'democracy' as an instrument of deceit.
That old argument again.
Science gave us medicines, disease control, tools for incredibly fast communication, breathing apparatuses, ... Science increased our life expectancy by 60 years since the dawn of man. What did religion ever do apart from telling women they are an inferior by-product of Adam and Eve's pelvic urges? I rest my case.
This is a silly argument anyway. Science has successfully done what religion has always failed to do: to unravel the mysteries of the universe. This has spawned a whole series of useful applications, like the Internet, anti-conception, cars and gunpowder. The fact that people use the Internet to post pictures of their mating dogs on Facebook, or pollute the Earth by taking the car to the dentist who only lives a block away, or blow each other's brains out because "we have the right to bear arms" - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, land of the brave! - is a testimony of our inherent lack of wisdom, not of the "dangers of science". I could turn this thing around and say religion is dangerous because people use it to fly planes in World Trade Centres... but I won't (see above.)
And though I don't want to upset anyone, the Nazis' unethical experimenting on people has gained the medical world a great amount of useful knowledge of the human body which we can all benefit from today. That said, I wish it could have been done another way. But we tend to spend more money on the maintenance of the WMD "we don't have" than on scientific research... Man pays for his destruction, not for his survival.
America - land of the brave! - is the only country so far to have detonated a nuclear bomb with the direct intention to kill people. Twice. And hardly a few days before Japan would surrender. Still, many scientists begged the military leaders not to do it. Famous letters were written, warning the elected "peacekeepers" of the world against the use of these dreadful things. Politicians, overall much less intelligent than scientists, sadly couldn't resist.
Science, in its search to better understand the universe, may have allowed others to create monsters. However, scientists put men on the moon, they never blew up public places. They ask people to only act in a self-critical and intelligent manner, not to live by the "Befehl ist Befehl" rule of thumb that keeps most people at bay. The best example of the goodwill of scientists, IMO, is CERN in Geneva. It's a scientific institute that was established in 1954, hardly a decade after everyone on this planet seemed eager to kill each other. It invited people based on their interest in particle physics, not based on where they came from. And thus, while the rest of the world divided Berlin, built a deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons and set villages in the Far East on fire, CERN united French, German, Belgian, Russian, Japanese, American, Italian, English, Dutch, ... scientists from all over the world. The many successes that came from research at CERN include tools to spot and cure cancers before it's too late, the Internet and a gazillion of playthings we couldn't do without any more. When did religion ever do us such a service, let alone over a span of only a few decades?
Science doesn't deal in morality. Since Christianity has hijacked our 'civilized' molarity anyway, it couldn't. Science tells you what your reproductive organs are for, not that you will burn in hell when you use them before marriage. Science tells you what happens to the human body when it's buried in dirt, not that you have to bury dead loved ones for else their 'soul' won't reach the heavens. Science is about discovering the laws of nature, and nothing else. In that, science is the only variety of human endeavour not directly aimed towards personal gain, power or mind-control. If God were real, he'd be a scientist.
Someone call an ambulance!
Thanks, @Ludovico.
Look, my reasoning is no doubt flawed in several places, but I speak from the bottom of my heart mind. :)
Agreed, and unlike you I'm not prepared to apologise for any perceived insult.
The moment I know someone actually believes in 'a god' they lose all respect in my eyes. I can converse with them and happily get along with them but always at the back of my mind I can't forget that they have such lassitude of mind.
Even Mrs Wizard winds me up by proclaiming to believe in god. I tend to give her a bit of leeway given she never goes to church and it seems to be some sort of residue from her upbringing. I think deep down she doesn't believe but she's stuck with it thanks to religious brainwashing. Nonetheless I'm always on hand to point out the inherent ridiculousness of the existence of a god.
Yet another superb post Dimi. You truly are the Dawkins of the forums.
I think science has to conclusively find out the origins of the universe before we can have a sea change in opinion. Even that isn't going to completely erase religion because again, as I said above, it is a part of the human condition (and it is firmly entrenched via organizational, social and familial connections and history). So some will still prefer to believe the stories from the past over evidence to the contrary, just as some still prefer to believe outdated views about women's place in society and racial superiority of some people over other. Thankfully, as in those examples, such instances are likely to be more rare in the future than in the past.
Conclusive evidence as to the origins of the universe and other worldly questions is at least more likely to relegate official religion to a less important position in society and marginalize it more, rather than giving it such official status.
That will be a step in the right direction imho, but it will take time, and science has work to do in the meanwhile. That's probably why certain governments tend to underfund scientific research once they get into power.
I'm working on it. It's called "MI6 Confessions" and I talk about all of you.
Darwin's ideas and confirmation via fossils, DNA etc is still not enough to know that Adam and Eve existed etc. Such is the power of religion over some, that no new development re the origin of the universe will dent their belief system. To reapraise one's beliefs to include newly acquired knowledge is a rational thing to do and that's not really religion's strong point.
@patb, Some things, indeed, demand centuries to be accepted. Between the time when "everybody knew" the Earth is flat and now, when "everybody knows" it really isn't, we had to spend almost half a millennium educating the masses. Even then, not until after WWII were most people in civilised countries properly educated in a few basics concerning our planet. The origin of life and the origin of the universe are even hotter topics. I don't think a global paradigm shift of this magnitude will occur during our lifetime.
On the other hand, secularisation seems to be an ongoing process, steady though it is. Also, I think that many folks, especially in the West, are more spiritual than they are truly religious. Without subscribing to religious dogmas or participating in Jesus Camp and whatnot, they silently contemplate the meaning of life, afterlife, their own version of the Creation Myth, ... While I'd rather everyone would sober up, some level of personal spirituality is most certainly preferable over total and unconditional devotion to cults and group madness.
I believe, though I'm far from certain, that Islamic terrorism gives organised, dogmatic religion a bad name. I'd like to think that intelligent folks prefer atheism over "another religion" to counter the constant threats that are sent our way in Allah's name.
IMHO organised, dogmatic religion already has a bad name without the assistance of terrorists. People taking fairy tales as fact, not genuinely thinking for themselves and choosing not to take responsibility for their own actions is enough to give it a bad name in my book