I agree that certain religious sects, cults and institutions over history and to the present day can and have been guilty of promoting ignorance. The example that came up about the church ~400 years ago trying to suppress Copernicus' findings (even though there was no biblical argument against it) shows that that can happen. I would separate that from saying that religion by definition promotes ignorance in this way. As I said, with the examples of schools as institutions, just because some schools might teach a certain scientific theory as fact, which then gets proved wrong, or a historical event as fact, when later new evidence shows it to have been a fabrication, doesn't mean that schools by definition promote ignorance. How about we refine the statement to say "religious institutions can be guilty of promoting ignorance"?
In regards to the 10 commandments... In principle, I agree with what you say about laws being set in stone, at least in terms of society's laws although I'm not sure I would use the word "ignorance". I agree that a society's laws should have that flexibility for the same reasons you suggest. It would be pretty blind for anyone to pass a law and think that it was always going to apply in every circumstance, but that would be the law maker being ignorant. I wouldn't see that as promoting ignorance. It might promote injustice I guess.
I suppose it depends on your take on the 10 commandments. I would see them more along the lines suggested by jpete3 or like a manufacturer's instruction booklet - "how to get the most of of your human". If you bought a new washing machine, I don't suppose you'd claim that the instructions promoted ignorance (unless you thought they were wrong), even if for some reason there was no way that the manual could be updated.
Doesn't Agnosticism by definition potentially promote ignorance? Couldn't saying you don't believe that we can ever know if God exists leave the potential of critically analysing a religious experience so much and assuming there must be some other explanation, that you miss God revealing Himself to you? ...and before you say it, I know that question can be turned round and of course, as it could be to this whole argument about ignorance, the answer would be "it's not ignorance if it's true".
Doesn't Agnosticism by definition potentially promote ignorance? Couldn't saying you don't believe that we can ever know if God exists leave the potential of critically analysing a religious experience so much and assuming there must be some other explanation, that you miss God revealing Himself to you? ...and before you say it, I know that question can be turned round and of course, as it could be to this whole argument about ignorance, the answer would be "it's not ignorance if it's true".
This is someone else defining agnosticism. To me, a true agnostic would go on to stretch that: "We cannot know if we can ever know if God exists". That is to say: God may or may not exist, and we may or may not be able to ever prove it. To say we will never know something is to believe in absolute truth without much credible foundation and is not agnosticism at all.
Also you're instating a sort of religious "belief" into agnosticism. Belief may exist in agnosticism, but it's a belief that certain things are undefined and we cannot, with current research methods, define them much further... all we can do is speculate. Quite a rational "belief" if you ask me since, by observing all kinds of research, anyone would probably come to the same conclusion.
Again I'd say the farthest, as a fundamental base, you can shake the ignorance card at agnosticism is that an agnostic can classify what he does and doesn't want to delve into considering facts currently known. If an agnostic sees religion has been an arguement in a circle for quite some time, he or she may want to put his/her energy elsewhere until new information is discovered. It's the way normal people put their lives into perspective, except many consider the church and Bible to have already done their theological thinking for them.
This is someone else defining agnosticism. To me, a true agnostic would go on to stretch that: "We cannot know if we can ever know if God exists". That is to say: God may or may not exist, and we may or may not be able to ever prove it. To say we will never know something is to believe in absolute truth without much credible foundation and is not agnosticism at all.
Also you're instating a sort of religious "belief" into agnosticism. Belief may exist in agnosticism, but it's a belief that certain things are undefined and we cannot, with current research methods, define them much further... all we can do is speculate. Quite a rational "belief" if you ask me since, by observing all kinds of research, anyone would probably come to the same conclusion.
Again I'd say the farthest, as a fundamental base, you can shake the ignorance card at agnosticism is that an agnostic can classify what he does and doesn't want to delve into considering facts currently known. If an agnostic sees religion has been an arguement in a circle for quite some time, he or she may want to put his/her energy elsewhere until new information is discovered. It's the way normal people put their lives into perspective, except many consider the church and Bible to have already done their theological thinking for them.
Hehe, how could you be so sure that you cannot know if we can ever know if God exists? That sounds to me like a "belief". Maybe we can know that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't agnostic literally mean "without knowledge"?
you both have points.....religion has been around since the start of cicilization.But thats the thing.Every era will have it's own religions-in each group of religions some die out and some survive by being modified. The way a religion survives is from the irational people in there willing to KILL for it.That is the peice of religion that makes me sick. You can't deny that the only reason your christain is because there where people who thought they saw a burning cross and began killing god knows how many people.of course with the beginning of the religions coming with that countless religions are now gone and I can only think of one religion alive left. And The religion voodoo has been scared so much that people even burned the worshipers in South America.
P.S. I suppose,but I usually respect the ability to believe the way you want
Hippo, I just feel I ought to point out that it seems your view of religion is built up from various out of context, weird tit-bits and wild assumptions and much of what you say about religions just comes across as nonsense. To be honest, if that was all I knew of religion, I wouldn't believe any of it either and think anyone who did must be crazy. I don't mean to put you off joining in these discussions, but I'd recommend you should learn up on a subject before you try to knock it.
Edit: I did like your example about someone blind from birth. That's probably a better example of what I was trying to say than the ones I used. Imagine trying to explain sight to someone who'd never experienced it. Why should they even believe that sight exists when if they have never experienced it they can't really understand what sight really is? Just because the majority say they experience it, when you have no proof and can't get any other than people telling you of their experience of sight, there's no reason to believe in it
I would like to point out this isn't all I know-I was just pointing out something something that seemed relevent at that point-,and also the reason I trurned athiest is because I've been to a bunch of churches,religious garherings,and around countless crishtains. When your around all these people and they say "it's just right"then you lose faith because you can see how idiotic everyone is.
P.S.but my mind does think differently from yours
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Hehe, how could you be so sure that you cannot know if we can ever know if God exists? That sounds to me like a "belief". Maybe we can know that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't agnostic literally mean "without knowledge"?
Well I can always take it one step further into: I cannot know if I cannot know if God exists. Actually the whole statement is just an endless loop if you just use can. Can is restrictive towards the future, so to rephrase: I don't know if I can ever know if God exists. It's just a play of words, but I think you caught onto the meaning a long time ago .
well honestly this whole thread has gone so far that it doesn't even match the first question-are you an athiest. And by now what we are saying is just a loop. It went from a single yes or no into an entire30 page long debate over this. I am very impressed on how intellegent everyone here is.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Comments
To Babbuun...
I agree that certain religious sects, cults and institutions over history and to the present day can and have been guilty of promoting ignorance. The example that came up about the church ~400 years ago trying to suppress Copernicus' findings (even though there was no biblical argument against it) shows that that can happen. I would separate that from saying that religion by definition promotes ignorance in this way. As I said, with the examples of schools as institutions, just because some schools might teach a certain scientific theory as fact, which then gets proved wrong, or a historical event as fact, when later new evidence shows it to have been a fabrication, doesn't mean that schools by definition promote ignorance. How about we refine the statement to say "religious institutions can be guilty of promoting ignorance"?
In regards to the 10 commandments... In principle, I agree with what you say about laws being set in stone, at least in terms of society's laws although I'm not sure I would use the word "ignorance". I agree that a society's laws should have that flexibility for the same reasons you suggest. It would be pretty blind for anyone to pass a law and think that it was always going to apply in every circumstance, but that would be the law maker being ignorant. I wouldn't see that as promoting ignorance. It might promote injustice I guess.
I suppose it depends on your take on the 10 commandments. I would see them more along the lines suggested by jpete3 or like a manufacturer's instruction booklet - "how to get the most of of your human". If you bought a new washing machine, I don't suppose you'd claim that the instructions promoted ignorance (unless you thought they were wrong), even if for some reason there was no way that the manual could be updated.
Doesn't Agnosticism by definition potentially promote ignorance? Couldn't saying you don't believe that we can ever know if God exists leave the potential of critically analysing a religious experience so much and assuming there must be some other explanation, that you miss God revealing Himself to you? ...and before you say it, I know that question can be turned round and of course, as it could be to this whole argument about ignorance, the answer would be "it's not ignorance if it's true".
Also you're instating a sort of religious "belief" into agnosticism. Belief may exist in agnosticism, but it's a belief that certain things are undefined and we cannot, with current research methods, define them much further... all we can do is speculate. Quite a rational "belief" if you ask me since, by observing all kinds of research, anyone would probably come to the same conclusion.
Again I'd say the farthest, as a fundamental base, you can shake the ignorance card at agnosticism is that an agnostic can classify what he does and doesn't want to delve into considering facts currently known. If an agnostic sees religion has been an arguement in a circle for quite some time, he or she may want to put his/her energy elsewhere until new information is discovered. It's the way normal people put their lives into perspective, except many consider the church and Bible to have already done their theological thinking for them.
Hehe, how could you be so sure that you cannot know if we can ever know if God exists?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't agnostic literally mean "without knowledge"?
you both have points.....religion has been around since the start of cicilization.But thats the thing.Every era will have it's own religions-in each group of religions some die out and some survive by being modified. The way a religion survives is from the irational people in there willing to KILL for it.That is the peice of religion that makes me sick. You can't deny that the only reason your christain is because there where people who thought they saw a burning cross and began killing god knows how many people.of course with the beginning of the religions coming with that countless religions are now gone and I can only think of one religion alive left. And The religion voodoo has been scared so much that people even burned the worshipers in South America.
P.S. I suppose,but I usually respect the ability to believe the way you want
Hippo, I just feel I ought to point out that it seems your view of religion is built up from various out of context, weird tit-bits and wild assumptions and much of what you say about religions just comes across as nonsense. To be honest, if that was all I knew of religion, I wouldn't believe any of it either and think anyone who did must be crazy. I don't mean to put you off joining in these discussions, but I'd recommend you should learn up on a subject before you try to knock it.
Edit: I did like your example about someone blind from birth. That's probably a better example of what I was trying to say than the ones I used. Imagine trying to explain sight to someone who'd never experienced it. Why should they even believe that sight exists when if they have never experienced it they can't really understand what sight really is? Just because the majority say they experience it, when you have no proof and can't get any other than people telling you of their experience of sight, there's no reason to believe in it
I would like to point out this isn't all I know-I was just pointing out something something that seemed relevent at that point-,and also the reason I trurned athiest is because I've been to a bunch of churches,religious garherings,and around countless crishtains. When your around all these people and they say "it's just right"then you lose faith because you can see how idiotic everyone is.
P.S.but my mind does think differently from yours
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.