Quote from: beejazzSee, I don't see it as remotely dishonest to pick and choose the parts of religion you like. On the one hand, you can say that people aren't thinking any differently than they were prior to exposure to religion, but you'd be giving people too much credit. This is thousands of years of experience talking to readers who don't have thousands of years to figure this shit out. Surely, with study, a person can build up a philosophy of things he likes but wouldn't have thought of on his own. And to say that a person should figure all this stuff out on his own is about on par with saying the same of science. It's simply more convenient and efficient to know the results of past study and experimentation than to have to repeat it all yourself.

They surely can.
But then, why call yourself a Christian, or whatever?
There's a massive difference between saying... say... 'Hey, these Jesus stories say some pretty cool things about how we should all be excellent to each other' and 'Jesus is the only way into heaven'.

If you're going to be a follower of that religion then cutting and pasting from the manual into your own philosophical guidebook IS dishonest, not least of all because the manual itself says it must be taken literally and mustn't be strayed from. If you're still picking and choosing, taking the 'meek shall inherit the earth' and leaving out all the rape, human sacrifice and putting to the sword that goes on in that vile collection of ploddingly written nonsense then you're being dishonest with yourself - and others.

Quote from: beejazzWould you hold a grudge if I picked and chose what I liked from Greek or French or Indian philosophers?

Philosophers? No.
Religions. Yes.

Quote from: GRIMThey surely can.
But then, why call yourself a Christian, or whatever?
There's a massive difference between saying... say... 'Hey, these Jesus stories say some pretty cool things about how we should all be excellent to each other' and 'Jesus is the only way into heaven'.

I'm not fully Christian an don't claim to be, so I see that as besides the point. My point is the value of the ground religion has covered, even if the value is mitigated somewhat by its flaws (both of which can be attributed to age)

QuoteIf you're going to be a follower of that religion then cutting and pasting from the manual into your own philosophical guidebook IS dishonest, not least of all because the manual itself says it must be taken literally and mustn't be strayed from. If you're still picking and choosing, taking the 'meek shall inherit the earth' and leaving out all the rape, human sacrifice and putting to the sword that goes on in that vile collection of ploddingly written nonsense then you're being dishonest with yourself - and others.

The scriptures aren't purely a historical account, but they are that too. Leaving out all the bad shit would be ridiculously naive, and scriptures that did this would be forgotten pretty quickly.

Also, think about how deviation from God's will is actually kind of glamorized in many parts. Fuck's sake, look at Moses. God and Moses bickered constantly. Crazy part is, sometimes Moses wins. God didn't hand out free will just to trap us into using it incorrectly. And while biblically, people take reason for themselves (as opposed to having it given to them), given will we are expected to use it. A member of a faith realizes the mitigating circumstances. And if they don't, this is stupidity. Like virtue (in my argument above), stupidity presupposes faith. However, to say that ignorance has the open mind to be informed by study is a bit of a stretch.

QuotePhilosophers? No.
Religions. Yes.

But where do you draw the line? Eastern philosophy and religion have some very fuzzy boundaries, and alot of Western thought is rooted in assumptions on the basis of faith (the sanctity of life for example... though it's pretty valuable on the basis of scarcity even without religion, many thinkers are first informed of the sanctity of life through religion).

Quote from: GRIMPoliticised, faith-based science? You should read up on Lysenko.

It is frightening because it is attempting to destroy the science education of entire generations, to undermine not the findings of science but the scientific process itself and to replace it with completely irrational and unsupported thinking.

How would you feel if English lessons were replaced with Newspeak lessons?
Or if ALL art classes were still life?
Or if mathematics lessons were changed to the idea that pi was exactly 3?

English: A bastardized language to begin with, and it's actually changing its contents and definitions as I type this.
Art: That is closer to the case than I am willing to acknowledge. At least in public schooling.
Math: I'm not going to be a bastard and say that it's the same as rounding to 3.14. But I have been told to substitute 3 on occasion.

But besides that, yeah... I'm pro-education. People need science. Especially now. If anything, I'd say those analogies aren't strong enough, because each offers an approximation of the original... It's more like playing four square in art class (although, I have to confess to having done that too).

QuoteThe Christian side, which I find far more frightening for humanity's future than attempts to understand the universe.

You see an attempt to understand. I see people learning how to stabilize wormholes and weaponizing this shit.

Quote from: GRIMNot for that particular, singular, action - necessarily - though irrational motivation can still backfire.

Hmmm. still not entirely convinced even with those provisions. Carry on while I think about it a bit more. I need an example situation.

It took Wilberforce fifty years to pass a bill to abolish slavery across the British Empire.  This was a rational, moral action by most formal systems of morality that I am aware of.  His motivation for making this his life's work (didn't he die a few days later?) was that this was what he believed God wanted him to do

Edit: Shaftsbury got the Factory Acts passed.  Mrs Boyd (my Middle School history teacher) would be ashamed of me