Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Omkara]

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/113

I's angry!

[Justin Hale]

Many thanks for the vid, Omkara.

Very powerful point about US politics. Absolutely true.

However, regarding respecting individuals' faith, I disagree slightly with Dawkins. Like I've said elsewhere, it depends entirely on the person. Queen Elizabeth II? I respect her faith because she's otherwise of outstanding character. John McCain? He and I agree profoundly on the environment and energy policy (and I admire him personally) and I've got to say I respect his faith (largely because he believes in the demonstrable fact of evolution however; I've no respect for anyone who doesn't). I respect the faiths of a tiny, microscopic % of theistic Daves posters too.

It depends entirely on the individual whether I respect their faith or not. I have religious friends and I've no choice but to respect their beliefs, because they're my friends and we have a lot of common ground elsewhere.

[Omkara]

Love the sinner, hate the sin. . .

I must admit, there are some people of faith (euphemism?!) whose faiths I can and do respect--but only insofar as they have put serious thought to that upon which they claim to fount their lives.

I still reject theistic arguments categorically; but this is not to say that I will not listen to a well reasoned argument. Indeed, I think there is much to be learned from any well-thought-out argument. Errors are some of the most fruitful areas of inquiry. They seem invariably to teach about the structure of the human mind.

I think, moreover, that the acquisition of truth is necessarily a kind of transcendence; but not of the kind that many will conjecture about as if their imaginings were objectively real ad nauseum. Rather, that transcendece is the overcoming of the mind and its limitations.

The scientific method is so brilliant exactly because of the way in which it controls for the limitations of the human mind. Socrates said, "Know thyself." This is the beginning of science: understadind the mind.

To know one's self requires a certain level of intelligence and the fortune of a proper education.

Religion--of the monotheistic variety in particular--does not have any build-in mechanism by which the illusion causing elements of the human mind may be overcome. In fact, these consequential illusions are augmented by the process of religious practice.

Check this one out:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22

[Adventurer]

Faith is not based on science. You can state that a person of faith is without reason if you want. There are many who claim that miracles occur in different faiths like Marie Therese of Austria in the old days who a Hindu yogi saw in person and saw that she was not eating but looked healthy. She only took holy communion. Someone having faith in a higher being is not something unusual. Albert Einstein, who was born a Jew, believed in a higher being, and he was more of a universalist; he was certainly not a traditional Jew. Many prominent scientists with high IQs are theists. The problem with religion is that often people simply will quote scripture too much and block so much mental reasoning. They will simply say "The Bible says this, so I must do this". However, the Bible was used, in the past, by some to justify slavery. I suppose that relates more to the Old Testament and Ham (hence we get the term Hamites).

[arjuna]

[Kuros]

[Justin Hale]

[Kuros]

[laogaiguk]

[Omkara]

[quote="Adventurer"] Albert Einstein, who was born a Jew, believed in a higher being, and he was more of a universalist; he was certainly not a traditional Jew. quote]

Einstein used the word "God" as a metaphor for the deep mysteriousness of the universe; his "higher being" was in no way personal.

As far as appealing to geniuses for justification, well, that is a kind of appeal to authority; ie, non-sequitur.

(Edit: Given the title and hence implied proposition, that to be religious implies a lower IQ, the appeal to genius is appropriate. However, in another time, before our current understanding of the world and contemporary epistemologies, to be religious did not necessarily imply a lower IQ. In addition, the form of the study in the video is a statistical analysis. Therefore, there may well be people with high IQ who believe in a personal god; but this does not mean that, though they have a high IQ, they do not have significant brain damage.)

In addition, we must look at those geniuses in the context of their time and place. The probability for genius to accept a personal god has gone down as our understanding of the universe has increased. That is, what we have come to know precludes the existence of a personal god.

What kind of education am I talking about? Well, we should teach comparative religion, the history of science, the rationalist traditions to which both Spinoza and Einstein belong; we should teach the children to be strongly critical of anything for which there is little, bad, or no evidence.

[Justin Hale]

[Unposter]

There really isn't anything original in Christianity. They took other people's ideas and recycled it and re-labeled it as their own. Western Civilization is generally built on Greek and Roman traditions. Even Judiasm has stong Greek roots.

Scientific method was a complete rejection of Christian education and that is why the early Church fought science hard.

That said there is nothing wrong, in fact it is quite right, to be spiritual and ethical (moral). I admire anyone who can be, whether they say it was their religion, faith or thier intellect that got them there.

I also believe that everyone has a right to have a faith, as long as it does not directly interfer with someone else having their faith. I criticize the atheist who denies the right of the theist to sit at the table as much as I criticize the theist who does the same thing. Poor manner are poor manners.

Einstein had the freedom to be outspoken in the way many people don't have. God Bless him for those subjects he decided to be outspoken about. It is too bad that today's much more selfish celebrities don't use their celebrity better.

[ED209]

[ED209]

[Omkara]

[quote="Unposter"]Scientific method was a complete rejection of Christian education and that is why the early Church fought science hard.
[quote]

This is interesting. Care to elaborate?