Originally posted by telerion I think scotty meant that religion is not a precondition for good people to behave in a good manner. So while religion is sufficient for some people to be good, it is not necessary for them to be good.
So while religion is sufficient for some people to be good, it is not necessary for them to be good.
Yes. My sentiments exactly. It just didn't quite bleed through the canvas with scotty's post. He seemed to be implying that religion is superfluous to whether we are good or not.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]So while religion is sufficient for some people to be good, it is not necessary for them to be good.
Yes. My sentiments exactly. It just didn't quite bleed through the canvas with scotty's post. He seemed to be implying that religion is superfluous to whether we are good or not.[/b]
I agree. However, I also believe that someone who only behaves in a good manner because of religion is not truly a good person.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Well, if a person does not do bad things only because they are scared of eternal damnation then I'd have to say that, irrespective of their actions, they are not a good person. A good person does good things irrespective of any penalty or reward. Telerion (I think) gave us the example of his charity work, and RBHILL shot him down saying that without r ...[text shortened]... en, 'if I could disprove religion tomorrow, would that automatically make you a bad person?'.
Well, if a person does not do bad things only because they are scared of eternal damnation then I'd have to say that, irrespective of their actions, they are not a good person.
Actually, we are what we do. If a person does good things then he is good and vice versa. Also, why do you think religious people would only do good things out of the fear of eternal damnation? Is there no aspect of doing something in our service/devotion to God? Do you define a person's good/bad status by their motives or their actions?
A good person does good things irrespective of any penalty or reward.
See above.
Is that your position Hal, that you can only be good if you are a (christian) theist?
Of course not.
Hal, I trust you think you are a good person. This begs the question then, 'if I could disprove religion tomorrow, would that automatically make you a bad person?'.
Begging the question in return -- how would you disprove religion.
Edit: I don't think I'm a good person -- I know I'm not, actually.
Originally posted by scottishinnz I agree. However, I also believe that someone who only behaves in a good manner because of religion is not truly a good person.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]Well, if a person does not do bad things only because they are scared of eternal damnation then I'd have to say that, irrespective of their actions, they are not a good person.
Actually, we are what we do. If a person does good things then he is good and vice versa. Also, why do you think religious people would only do good things out of th ...[text shortened]... disprove religion.
Edit: I don't think I'm a good person -- I know I'm not, actually.[/b]
Lol, good response! All credit, buddy!
I'd have to say that a person is good or bad based on their motives rather than their actions. It is possible for a good person to be put in a situation where they have to do a bad thing, or the eternal 'best of all bad choices' thing.
Likewise, it's possible for a 'bad person' (although I don't truly believe such a thing exists - I think there are just differences of opinion. There are desperate people also though - they are probably the most dangerous group) to do good things, although it's probably more indirect for them....
It is a common enough misconception that science proves things one way or the other. Science generates testable hypotheses as you all know and is absolutely not in the business of proving things. By the same token I do not see the usefulness of "disproving religion" with respect and science is not in business to do away with religion and when this stance is taken I can understand religiously-minded people being wary if not always understanding the unwillingness to learn. I think here again the concept of NOMA is useful to avoid trouble walking on someone’s turf however Dawkin's is provocative in rejecting this stance.
I am reading Peter Watson's a Terrible Beauty: The people and ideas that shaped the modern mind and highly recommend. There are four quotes at the start of this book that I think are relevant here:
"...he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow" - Ecclesiastes 1:18.
"History makes one aware that there is no finality in human affairs; there is not a static perfection and an improvable wisdom to be achieved" - Bertrand Russell
"It may be a mistake to mix different wines, but old and new wisdom mix admirably" - Bertolt Brecht
"All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born" - W.B. Yeats
Originally posted by micarr It is a common enough misconception that science proves things one way or the other. Science generates testable hypotheses as you all know and is absolutely not in the business of proving things. By the same token I do not see the usefulness of "disproving religion" with respect and science is not in business to do away with religion and when this stance is t ...[text shortened]... t Brecht
"All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born" - W.B. Yeats
"...he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow."
i'll not state my personal view for now. i've seen both instalments of dawkins programs. i'll pick one of his questions for anyone:
"How can you take the bible as fact when it states the world is only 5000 years old?".
he went on alot about how inaccurate things are in the bible and how often contracting.
Last program was specifically on "brain washing" children to believe in religion from an early and therefore impressionable age. I thought a good argument for his cause, even though his rudeness does bug me.
didn't plan on offending anyone, look forward to your thoughts 🙂
Originally posted by scottishinnz Just one my typical 'it's just not that simple' moments, that's all.
I dont know I am not an expert on scripture scottishinnz maybe it is that simple for the biblical literalists I was trying to address with the quote. My central point in my mail however was that you stated if you could "disprove religion in the morning" which is impossible as I am sure you know. If you havent already I would recommend reading Watson's book. It is amazing how much science has influenced thinking in every of human activity in the 20th century and there is no reason to think this will not continue.
Originally posted by micarr I dont know I am not an expert on scripture scottishinnz maybe it is that simple for the biblical literalists I was trying to address with the quote. My central point in my mail however was that you stated if you could "disprove religion in the morning" which is impossible as I am sure you know. If you havent already I would recommend reading Watson's book. I ...[text shortened]... of human activity in the 20th century and there is no reason to think this will not continue.
The dsprove religion / god in the morning thing was basically to show that religion / religious beliefs are not the same as being a good person or not. I'm sure you got that already.
I agree, science is probably one of the greatest influences on our lives currently. I was talking about this with one of the PhD students I'm currently supervising the other day; it's amazing how much science people know now, compared to perhaps 20 years ago. Don't get me wrong, there is still alot of ignorance, but it's healthy for science and scientists to see that we are having some positive effects.
Which book is it you are referring to? Watson? Could you give the reference please, I'd be interested definately.
Originally posted by scottishinnz The dsprove religion / god in the morning thing was basically to show that religion / religious beliefs are not the same as being a good person or not. I'm sure you got that already.
I agree, science is probably one of the greatest influences on our lives currently. I was talking about this with one of the PhD students I'm currently supervising the ...[text shortened]... rring to? Watson? Could you give the reference please, I'd be interested definately.
L
A Terrible Beauty: The People and Ideas That Shaped the Modern Mind - A History Peter Watson. The ISBN is 1842124447 so try that in your local amazon.
Micarr
The Root of All Evil
14 Jan '06 00:55
Back to Top