Couple of different things going on here that I think should be recognized as separate. What religion offers, and what science can not, as least if you're doing it right, is certainty. A holy book can say that "Marriage is between a man and a women" and people can choose to believe that and believe that it has always been this way and will never change. Religion offers a concrete view of the world that science cannot and that is very comforting. Science, if you're doing it right, cannot make these kind of concrete statements. Good science says "we think the earth goes around the sun based on these experiments, but there is always the possibility we could be wrong." To choose to believe in science is to accept never being certain about anything, and to accept it's limits in answering many questions. In most sciences the best understanding of truth we have changes all the time, mostly in the details, but also in the big stuff sometimes. Science also frequently cannot give concrete answers to real world problems. To pick a random one, "Is it safe to build a house here?" Science can say "well, there is a 0.3% probability that it will burn down each year, and a 0.05% chance of it being destroyed in an earthquake, etc, etc. You're still making a guess about what will happen, just a slightly more informed one. So, that's the certainty issue. Religion offers it, science doesn't, and if you need to feel certain than you are probably better off choosing religion. Many people can't handle uncertainty and complexity, they need a simple, concrete model of how the universe works in order to function and they're never going to get that from science. That doesn't make them bad or ignorant people, just ones who have different needs from a belief system. The other issue is one of identity, and this long predates human socirty as we know it today. People need to fewel that they are a part of something. The human self is way way too nebulous to be defined on it's own, but rather is defined by what it's similar to. In human interaction we need these shortcuts to figuring out what the other person is like because if we had to start from scratch every time we met someone we would never get anywhere. People form their identities, both external and internal, by what they associate with. This may be family (I am so-and-so's son), nationality (I am British), employment (I'm a student), or other association (I'm an Arsenal fan). Each of these statements tells you something about the person that you can use as the basis for further interaction and, to some extent, make judgments about them. We tend to deride these identifications without understanding the role they play for people or recognizing that we have our own ways of identifying ourselves. It's literally a case of "we all do it" and yes many people still pass judgment on others for it.
Let's rewind about 100 years. Great Grandad Walle is sitting at his writing desk, quill in hand, composing his contribution to a debate about women's right to vote. Indeed, you can extend the right to vote example to other groups, seeing as it often started out as quite an exclusive (e.g. white aristocrats in Britain) activity.
Nicely put. @Cthippo: Chorus: "We are! We are all individuals!" Lone voice: "I'm not"... We are tribal beings. Moreover we are reared as children so we are also attached beings. As such we have a strong need to be part of a family and group (and indeed, pecking order: we want an alpha to follow. Now consider what are the qualities of an alpha male or female). We define ourselves in relation to these other people and position ourselves in the hierarchy. We also classify others as 'like us' --part of the same tribe-- or 'unlike us'; part of another tribe which potentially competes with ours for resources in the same ecological niche. Where did you think that "foreigners stealing our jobs and taken our women" mentality came from? The tribal lines can be drawn anywhere. Often group allegiances are hierarchically nested and can overlap in all sorts of ways. Culture is just a way to create and maintain tribal cohesion and order, and differentiation from other tribes. Language, religion, custom and dress are just manifestations of that.
I haven't argued taking freedom of speech or rights away from any group so I don't think you actually thought about that before hitting "post". Well a catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory and the founder of genetics was a monk, there need not be an intrinsic problem, or conflict, between religion or science. Many scientists today claim to be religious, if that includes religious values or only the spiritual aspect of it I don't know, a mix would be my guess. @Nexxo You also stole my football analogy at page 9 not cool man. Yeah, I do have to leave again sorry, work is calling.
ORLY? Think it over. And a vicar wrote a most interesting book on natural selection. Although he worried a bit about how the church would receive it. In fact, in Victorian times it was quite usual for the clergy to engage in scientific studies. Science was viewed as a way of getting closer to God through understanding His creation. I think you'll find I was there first. I have posted a lot on tribal dynamics in the past.
Technically not, you're "arguing" that we shouldn't give identical rights to a minority, despite being unable or unwilling to provide any evidence why not. "Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman" is not an argument, it is a statement.
walle is talking about denying a group certain rights, including freedom of expression (calling their formal relationship bond a "marriage"). As far as I can tell he perceives gay people getting married as an adulteration of the definition of marriage and hence contributing to an erosion of the 'fabric of our culture' by changing its societal norms and values. It's fascist prattle, of course, of the same kind rolled out by an insecure Joe Public every time they smell an Indian takeaway or spot someone wearing a turban.
Sadly for my waistline, every time I smell an Indian takeaway I usually leave with a set meal for two (for one) I heard somewhere that if you keep quoting the same statement in green over and over again on an internet forum, you're always guaranteed to be right.
I heard somewhere that if you repeatedly mention that you should be working it should be interpreted as an admission that you are dodging the crux of the matter and are trying to make us all think you have all the answers but you're just too busy to write to a fuller response. No doubt Walle's fuller response will come at some point. I'm sure of it. I've got faith. How long 'til you retire Walle?
Nexxo - are you a prophet? Btw, I'm only learning/studying, don't ask me owt as I'm just about getting the outside of a very large jigsaw puzzle. I'm merely posting the above to possibly aid/further spark debate amongst previous posters.
Umm.....Walle.....Not my quote. Does it really sound like something I would write? Really? You know you don't have much to say on a subject when you start misquoting people. I mean really...."Some of us seek to learn and grow, and don't find it contradictory to our faith" Sounds like a fundamental Atheist's words doesn't it? A great man once said.....'I don't want to believe....I want to KNOW.' I have zero faith. None, Nada, zip, diddlysquat. Faith is for lazy people who can't be bothered to find out the truth.
No, I'm a psychologist. Some people may argue it's the same thing, but it really isn't supposed to be.
Kenco, thanks for taking a massive dump all over the thread with that one Not sure I'm going to take you up on it other than this: I think this is what you call marketing spin for the rapidly declining relevance of Christianity. Oh look, all the rats are leaving the sinking ship, this obviously makes the sinking ship that much cooler now... That'd be where my sig comes in... (not the sex bit)
I see what you mean. Christianity in all it's strains has a lot to answer for. I'd beg to differ on the 'becoming cooler' thought though, with the publicity regarding child sexual abuse.
I know that the NHS IT infrastructure is a bit outdated, but I can assure you that it's not that bad. Although working there for 20 years makes me feel 2000 years old...
I was thinking more along the lines of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" EDIT: And, with this thread winding down, I wonder if anyone learned anything from it. I have a better understanding of the fundamentalist religious opposition to homosexual marriage and and hold a few forum members in higher regard (Nexxo, Kayin, and, oddly enough, Walle for having the courage to keep repeating himself in the face of some unreasonably personal opposition). I guess what i'm wondering is did anyone else have any useful take-aways from this excercise or are we all just wasting our time arguing on the internet?
