Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science!

Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested?

Ok then. How shall we begin?

Science is great,
Science is great,
There is no science but science,
Einstein is its prophet.
Come to study,
Come to learn,
Science is great,
There is no science but science

It's a start, at least... ;D

I thought the global warmists had done this already?

Our science which art of mind,
Hallowed be thy name,
From big bang come,
No 'Will' be done,
On earth as it is in all parts of the cosmos.

Give us this sapience,
Our mental bread,
And forgive us our 'gods'
As we forgive those who trespass against thee
And lead us not unto mysticism
But deliver us from New Age.

Amen.

I guess those posts indicate the absurdity of the OP.

Sappho, what of religions' founding or defining mantras? They all have them... What would be science's?

Science, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the peoples of Earth. Their mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Sappho wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:

Science, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the peoples of Earth. Their mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Ah yes... That one.

Made great by its fame in the English speaking world for being the most well known statement containing a split infinitive ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm: Science, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the peoples of Earth. Their mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. Ah yes... That one. Made great by its fame in the English speaking world for being the most well known statement containing a split infinitive ;D

"In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before - and thus was the Empire forged."

Sappho wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 5:54pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:41pm: Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm: Science, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the peoples of Earth. Their mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. Ah yes... That one. Made great by its fame in the English speaking world for being the most well known statement containing a split infinitive ;D "In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before - and thus was the Empire forged."

We should quickly call George Lucas. I thoroughly believe, this gratuitous splitting of infinitives could easily be rapidly going some way towards comedically lightening the load of dense science fiction dialogue.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 6:14pm:

Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:54pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:41pm: Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm: Science, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the peoples of Earth. Their mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. Ah yes... That one. Made great by its fame in the English speaking world for being the most well known statement containing a split infinitive ;D "In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before - and thus was the Empire forged." We should quickly call George Lucas. I thoroughly believe, this gratuitous splitting of infinitives could easily be rapidly going some way towards comedically lightening the load of dense science fiction dialogue.

Why????? It's nothing to do with him.....Douglas Adams wrote that line...

Sappho wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 1:27pm:

Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science! Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested? Ok then. How shall we begin?

At the risk of being called names.....How do you define the differences between 'real' religion and a cult???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 11:22pm:

Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 1:27pm: Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science! Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested? Ok then. How shall we begin? At the risk of being called names.....How do you define the differences between 'real' religion and a cult???

I'm not interested in childish name calling on the Ozpol forum... never have been... never will be.

Otherwise, I just did a quick google and found this site which has a very sound layman's summary of the differences between cults and religions.

---

Sappho wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 11:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 11:22pm: Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 1:27pm: Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science! Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested? Ok then. How shall we begin? At the risk of being called names.....How do you define the differences between 'real' religion and a cult??? I'm not interested in childish name calling on the Ozpol forum... never have been... never will be. Otherwise, I just did a quick google and found this site which has a very sound layman's summary of the differences between cults and religions.

Interesting....but that's still basically 'opinion'.....As far as I can see, the difference seems to be PR, mainstream religions have a better  image, mostly due to longevity and numbers of membership...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:08am:

Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 11:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 11:22pm: Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 1:27pm: Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science! Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested? Ok then. How shall we begin? At the risk of being called names.....How do you define the differences between 'real' religion and a cult??? I'm not interested in childish name calling on the Ozpol forum... never have been... never will be. Otherwise, I just did a quick google and found this site which has a very sound layman's summary of the differences between cults and religions. Interesting....but that's still basically 'opinion'.....As far as I can see, the difference seems to be PR, mainstream religions have a better  image, mostly due to longevity and numbers of membership...

And if you take into account the sectarian animosity among Catholics and Protestants and those between faiths (including Christianity and Islam, Hinduism and Islam), most of what now apparently defines a cult was policy within established churches.

Cults don’t necessarily destroy the family unit and religion doesn’t always promote it.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:56am:

Cults don’t necessarily destroy the family unit and religion doesn’t always promote it.

And not that secular disciplines are averse to shunning... The treatment of the mathematician Georg Cantor by his peers was closer to persecution than honest critique.

For Cantor we can scratch encouragement of independent critical thinking off the list too.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm: Science, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the peoples of Earth. Their mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. Ah yes... That one. Made great by its fame in the English speaking world for being the most well known statement containing a split infinitive ;D

Not that there's anything wrong with split infinitives. I love to dramatically emphasise parts of sentences using them. English is not Latin.

Opponents of split infinitives should be condemned to perpetually abide in a museum of grammar somewhere - and to permanently recall that hideous era where, having no other earthly purpose, having decided on the singular purpose of mangling a perfectly good language, they decided to model English grammar on Latin and teach it to three generations.

Unlike Latin, English is living, free and dynamic. I say unto ye brethren - Let us cast off the shackles of restrictions on split infinitives and adapt our dynamic  language in accordance with current usage,  to suit these changing times.

There is a religion called scientism, but it has nothing to do with the scientific principle.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:56am: Cults don’t necessarily destroy the family unit and religion doesn’t always promote it. And not that secular disciplines are averse to shunning... The treatment of the mathematician Georg Cantor by his peers was closer to persecution than honest critique.

Well... Annie and Helian... I pass the banner to you since my attempt at finding a functional difference between cults and religion has not met your standards. Gizmo still needs an answer you see and you two, based on your ability to critique my attempt show a greater understanding of the functional differences than me.

And there must be a functional difference between them or else why on earth would their be different definitions of the words right?

Over to you then....

A cult is a religion and vice versa.  I guess it's a question of perspective.  A cult is usually a religion that causes disruption to the social norms of a society.

For example, in Roman times there was the Cult of Dionysus and the cult of Mithraism. At the time when there was an established polytheistic religion, Christianity was regarded as another cult that generally involved rabble rousing and disruption to social norms. It ceased to be a cult when it became the social norm, for example in medieval France.  

Certainly Christianity in connection with the story of Hypatia of Alexandria could rightfully be described as a cult. For those who are unfamiliar, here is a synopsis:

http://www.librarising.com/spirituality/hypatia.html

Sappho wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 10:03am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:56am: Cults don’t necessarily destroy the family unit and religion doesn’t always promote it. And not that secular disciplines are averse to shunning... The treatment of the mathematician Georg Cantor by his peers was closer to persecution than honest critique. Well... Annie and Helian... I pass the banner to you since my attempt at finding a functional difference between cults and religion has not met your standards. Gizmo still needs an answer you see and you two, based on your ability to critique my attempt show a greater understanding of the functional differences than me. And there must be a functional difference between them or else why on earth would their be different definitions of the words right? Over to you then....

Why waste time defining a difference? Religions have been cults and many cults have been spawned from religion (whatever either of them are, if not the same)...

My first post on this thread may have been intended to be humorous, but there was a point... That all religions have a founding tenet, a profession of faith... Islam declares itself in its call to prayer, Christianity with the Apostles Creed, Buddhism with the four noble truths...

Seems if you want to turn science into a religion... Start with a profession of faith,  tenet(s) or founding statement...

Like say... From Knowledge comes Truth...

Is that a good start?

Sappho wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 1:27pm:

Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science! Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested? Ok then. How shall we begin?

What the hell, I'll have a go.

Science's driving force, that of a desire for certainty or to know, is the same drive found in religion. The desire to fix and lay down absolute maxims is man's ancient inclination to find and understand his place in the world. On this account science is rooted in same desires as religion. (Genealogically speaking, science grows out of philosophy, and philosophy grows out of theology, so it's no surprise that its base desire is the same).

What differs greatly is their methodologies. But for argument's sake, I'll argue that science's positing of maxims and truths relies on a similar type of abstraction of phenomena that religion does. While religion relies heavily on intuition and claim the cause of phenomena 'is god,' (except for when we get into the free will debate because god doesn't cause us to be 'evil,' apparently, it's the individual's fault), science uses cause and effect relations, that is, it looks at how effects are caused by a previous phenomenon. Meaning, a sequence of events take place where a previous phenomena is singled out to be the cause of a particular effect. This procedure pretty much rapes the timeline of events by singling out a few causes and effects from the billion of possible and actual causes and effects. So, because the timeline or genealogy of a phenomena is ignored and the 'here and now' is taken as given, science reifies its concepts and sequences of cause and effect. Here, a "faith" is maintained that each cause will have a particular effect, all the while being ignorant of the billions of causes that have produced the particular effect under consideration. This is a type of dogma because it lays down absolute maxims.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Sappho wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 1:07pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 10:03am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:56am: Cults don’t necessarily destroy the family unit and religion doesn’t always promote it. And not that secular disciplines are averse to shunning... The treatment of the mathematician Georg Cantor by his peers was closer to persecution than honest critique. Well... Annie and Helian... I pass the banner to you since my attempt at finding a functional difference between cults and religion has not met your standards. Gizmo still needs an answer you see and you two, based on your ability to critique my attempt show a greater understanding of the functional differences than me. And there must be a functional difference between them or else why on earth would their be different definitions of the words right? Over to you then.... Why waste time defining a difference?

Oh I don't know... maybe because the English language sees a significantly distinct difference between them... so much so as to give each a different name and variance in meaning associated with those different names!

But what the hey... who cares about meanings given to words eh? Much better to narrow our world view to that which is Helian's experience... yes?

Perhaps then... the distinction that has been provided is a functional distinction after all and what we have from you and Annie is nothing more than an attempt at redefining word to suit your own world view rather than the world view as expressed in current and reputable dictionary definitions.


Quote:

Religions have been cults and many cults have been spawned from religion (whatever either of them are, if not the same)...

Yes... and? Link that to the thread please, which is about turning Science into a Religion.


Quote:

My first post on this thread may have been intended to be humorous, but there was a point... That all religions have a founding tenet, a profession of faith... Islam declares itself in its call to prayer, Christianity with the Apostles Creed, Buddhism with the four noble truths...

Are you suggesting that Science does not have a 'profession of faith' upon which all else is founded?

You would be wrong if you thought that.


Quote:

Seems if you want to turn science into a religion... Start with a profession of faith,  tenet(s) or founding statement... Like say... From Knowledge comes Truth... Is that a good start?

No it is not. It would certainly make for a nice little mantra but that is all.

What about the axioms of mathematics, of which there can be no proofs, which science must concede to, in good faith, if it is to pursue knowledge?

Sappho wrote on Nov 7^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Sappho wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 1:07pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 10:03am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:56am: Cults don’t necessarily destroy the family unit and religion doesn’t always promote it. And not that secular disciplines are averse to shunning... The treatment of the mathematician Georg Cantor by his peers was closer to persecution than honest critique. Well... Annie and Helian... I pass the banner to you since my attempt at finding a functional difference between cults and religion has not met your standards. Gizmo still needs an answer you see and you two, based on your ability to critique my attempt show a greater understanding of the functional differences than me. And there must be a functional difference between them or else why on earth would their be different definitions of the words right? Over to you then.... Why waste time defining a difference? Oh I don't know... maybe because the English language sees a significantly distinct difference between them... so much so as to give each a different name and variance in meaning associated with those different names! But what the hey... who cares about meanings given to words eh? Much better to narrow our world view to that which is Helian's experience... yes? Perhaps then... the distinction that has been provided is a functional distinction after all and what we have from you and Annie is nothing more than an attempt at redefining word to suit your own world view rather than the world view as expressed in current and reputable dictionary definitions. Quote: Religions have been cults and many cults have been spawned from religion (whatever either of them are, if not the same)... Yes... and? Link that to the thread please, which is about turning Science into a Religion. [quote]My first post on this thread may have been intended to be humorous, but there was a point... That all religions have a founding tenet, a profession of faith... Islam declares itself in its call to prayer, Christianity with the Apostles Creed, Buddhism with the four noble truths...

Are you suggesting that Science does not have a 'profession of faith' upon which all else is founded?

You would be wrong if you thought that.


Quote:

Seems if you want to turn science into a religion... Start with a profession of faith,  tenet(s) or founding statement... Like say... From Knowledge comes Truth... Is that a good start?

No it is not. It would certainly make for a nice little mantra but that is all.

What about the axioms of mathematics, of which there can be no proofs, which science must concede to, in good faith, if it is to pursue knowledge? [/quote]
Another ship to nowhere with Sappho carrying on like an acid spitting nun...

Maybe the friggin English language makes a distinct difference out of legal reasons for there to be a difference...

The next time you trawl up these bullshit threads of yours... Start with your own definition and go from there.

Otherwise piss off back to the other forum.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 8^th, 2011 at 12:40am:

Sappho wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 3:11pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Seems if you want to turn science into a religion... Start with a profession of faith,  tenet(s) or founding statement... Like say... From Knowledge comes Truth... Is that a good start? No it is not. It would certainly make for a nice little mantra but that is all. What about the axioms of mathematics, of which there can be no proofs, which science must concede to, in good faith, if it is to pursue knowledge? Another ship to nowhere with Sappho carrying on like an acid spitting nun... Maybe the friggin English language makes a distinct difference out of legal reasons for there to be a difference... The next time you trawl up these bullshit threads of yours... Start with your own definition and go from there. Otherwise piss off back to the other forum.

LOL... I'll cop that sweet Helian... It's justified... although the last thing I am is a nun... far from it.

Now back to the topic... you say that religion is to cults as cults are to religion... so lets make that point a moot point and claim that we are seeking How to turn Science into a Religion or cult... problem solved yes?

You made a good point in that a religion/cult needs a point of faith. I have pointed out that there are many points of faith found in foundation mathematics.

One example of what I am referring to is the axiom n x 0 = 0. It cannot be proven. It must be taken on faith. It is because it is... is all we know of that axiom.  

Would this kind of faith suffice for the transformation of science to religion/cult status? If not why not.

I heard a talk by a Rabbi on "The Spirit of Things" on ABC Radio National that covers some of this ground very well.

I'll post the transcript when it comes out.  Robin Williams was also involved in that debate. He made the point that nobody could disprove the existence of God, but it was easier to prove the irrelevance of God if he did exist.


Quote:

Robyn Williams of Radio National's The Science Show shares his unmitigated disappointment in the God which totally failed his expectations. Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins, from Emanuel Synagogue, argues that the expectations are misplaced, and blame should squarely be placed on humanity not God. God in the 21st Century was an event organised by the Sydney Institute, and our edited recording includes audience questions and comments from the other panel members, Dr Shakira Hussein and Angela Shanahan.

Quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2011/3353297.htm

Some of the comments by Jeffrey Kamins were extremely perceptive, expecially the comments about us (and life) coming from one source - we all have this commonality, and whether you choose to call it God or not is largely a matter of semantics.

It's what I've been saying all along.

If you want to test whether a form of knowledge (scientia) has any religious undercurrent to it, ask: what is the purpose of, reason for knowing that?

SInce this is an ethical question, by their answers ye shall know them.
If they say, there is no particular purpose to it, then they are nihilists and you can safely ignore them, for they are either lying or they are too stupid to bother with.
If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good.

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:

If you want to test whether a form of knowledge (scientia) has any religious undercurrent to it, ask: what is the purpose of, reason for knowing that? SInce this is an ethical question, by their answers ye shall know them. If they say, there is no particular purpose to it, then they are nihilists and you can safely ignore them, for they are either lying or they are too stupid to bother with. If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good.

I'll buy that.  If the elaborate workings of the universe are a manifestation of (pantheism) or a result of a god (deism etc) then it would be a valid form of "worship" to improve our knowledge of "creation". Intuitively it seems much more effective that singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" out of key.

I've often said that all knowledge is sacred, and that's true whichever way you look at it - even from an existential viewpoint (knowledge springs from observation, which comes from perception - which is all we have).  

Anyway, back to the Rabbi in my earlier post. The transcript is up now for bandwidth challenged. Some very clear thought there. The crux:


Quote:

At the core of Jewish teaching about God is that God is one, and that everything is interconnected and God creates and flows through all. If from a scientific perspective Stephen Hawking is correct and creation began with gravity, then we are still part of the whole. Naturalist John Muir put it this way, 'When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe. From a point of religion or humanism, we recognise the singular unity of existence, the interconnectivity of all life.'

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:

If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good.

Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25^th, 2011 at 7:30am:

Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport.

Yes, Big deal. Religion is only defined by common convention anyway, and even then people will argue about whether something is or is not a religion.  There is no rigorous way to define the term.

It's like the children's game. "You are a flutsch", and the partipants keep changing the definition as they go along.  Flutsches don"t ..... No, but flutsches do .... so you are a flutsche.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25^th, 2011 at 7:30am:

Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport.

How to live well - sport doesn't cover all life, nor does any code of poractice, by definitiopn covering a narrow area of human activity.

Religion is about how to live well (ie how to die well). Sport it ain't.

Soren wrote on Nov 30^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25th, 2011 at 7:30am: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport. How to live well - sport doesn't cover all life, nor does any code of poractice, by definitiopn covering a narrow area of human activity. Religion is about how to live well (ie how to die well). Sport it ain't.

Science has quite a lot to say about how to live well and die well.

Soren wrote on Nov 30^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25th, 2011 at 7:30am: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport. How to live well - sport doesn't cover all life, nor does any code of poractice, by definitiopn covering a narrow area of human activity. Religion is about how to live well (ie how to die well). Sport it ain't.

In this country where we punch 5 times above our weight in sport, there'd be millions here who'd say sport has done more for Australians living well (i.e. the health of the national psyche) than any "deo-centric" religion. And Codes of Conduct / Ethics have done more to ensure people behave well all week than "religion", which seems more concerned about behaving only on Sundays (or, at least, forgives you when you don't).

Let's look at this code of ethics in some detail:


Quote:

Exodus 20 The Ten Commandments 1 And God spoke all these words: 2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. (1) 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. (2) 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ok, ok, whatever -  for a supreme being, you seem to lack focus. So to summarise - no little statues of gods, even if they were presents from  Bali) 7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (3) 8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. (4)... (Divine blethering omitted) 12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (5) 13 “You shall not murder. (6) 14 “You shall not commit adultery. (7) 15 “You shall not steal. (8) 16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (9) 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (10)

Now 1,2,3 and 4 basically say "respect the divine ego". 40% of the Judeo-Christian morality system is devoted to maintaining the divine ego.

5-9 are basically ok although you'd question the emphasis of some. 7 is conveniently ignored by a large proportion of Christians (particularly the born-agains)

10 - this idea of covetting is interesting. It means you should not get yourself worked up just because somebody else has more than you. Of course most people, including Christians do just that.    

I omitted the divine blether about the sabbath, but it seems that in terms of verbage, allowing your cow to work on Sundays figures for about 2% of this system of morality.

So overall, it has its good points, but the "dead wood" seems to be overly distracting. I mean how many people actually have male and female servants and oxen, not to mention cows who do business on Sundays?

http://www.displaystatues.com/images/jet20set20tony20cow1906.jpg

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 7:48am:

Soren wrote on Nov 30th, 2011 at 11:26am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25th, 2011 at 7:30am: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport. How to live well - sport doesn't cover all life, nor does any code of poractice, by definitiopn covering a narrow area of human activity. Religion is about how to live well (ie how to die well). Sport it ain't. In this country where we punch 5 times above our weight in sport, there'd be millions here who'd say sport has done more for Australians living well (i.e. the health of the national psyche) than any "deo-centric" religion. And Codes of Conduct / Ethics have done more to ensure people behave well all week than "religion", which seems more concerned about behaving only on Sundays (or, at least, forgives you when you don't).

Nonsense. Sport and codes of conduct did not provide the fundamental outlook and ways of organising society and human relationships.
A healthy body is a very good thing but is not enough if you live among other people. A truckload of code of conduct will not change a corrupt country.

Sappho wrote on Nov 30^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 30th, 2011 at 11:26am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25th, 2011 at 7:30am: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport. How to live well - sport doesn't cover all life, nor does any code of poractice, by definitiopn covering a narrow area of human activity. Religion is about how to live well (ie how to die well). Sport it ain't. Science has quite a lot to say about how to live well and die well.

Really? You mean 'social science' obviously, sociology and psychology and all that kind of ideology.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 10:25am:

Now 1,2,3 and 4 basically say "respect the divine ego". 40% of the Judeo-Christian morality system is devoted to maintaining the divine ego. 5-9 are basically ok although you'd question the emphasis of some. 7 is conveniently ignored by a large proportion of Christians (particularly the born-agains) 10 - this idea of covetting is interesting. It means you should not get yourself worked up just because somebody else has more than you. Of course most people, including Christians do just that.     I omitted the divine blether about the sabbath, but it seems that in terms of verbage, allowing your cow to work on Sundays figures for about 2% of this system of morality. So overall, it has its good points, but the "dead wood" seems to be overly distracting. I mean how many people actually have male and female servants and oxen, not to mention cows who do business on Sundays? http://www.displaystatues.com/images/jet20set20tony20cow1906.jpg

Fascinating, Muso. You seem to be hopelessly stuck in the eternal last 5 minutes of intellectual fashion. A fashonista of ideas if there ever was one.

You will no doubt pretend that you cannot possibly understand Zen parables because there are no tigers in rural Qld.

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.

Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!



What blether! I mean how many people actually travel across field, not to mention encountering tigers and two mice, one black the other white, on any day of the week?

I'm not a Zen Buddhist, but since you mention it, its morality system is anything but anachronistic. Tell me what you find irrelevant or objectionable in this:

http://www.gardendigest.com/zen/ten.htm

My point was one of relevance. If a morality system is not relevant, then it either needs to be brought up to date or recognised as the 2nd Century BC zeitgeist that it is.  

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 10:49am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 7:48am: Soren wrote on Nov 30th, 2011 at 11:26am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25th, 2011 at 7:30am: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2011 at 8:50pm: If they say it is to know how to live well, then they are religious - what binds us together (religio) is the common good. Notwithstanding your "the common good" red herring, by that narrow definition, many things qualify as a "religion" including professional codes of conduct, professional codes of ethics and arguably sport. How to live well - sport doesn't cover all life, nor does any code of poractice, by definitiopn covering a narrow area of human activity. Religion is about how to live well (ie how to die well). Sport it ain't. In this country where we punch 5 times above our weight in sport, there'd be millions here who'd say sport has done more for Australians living well (i.e. the health of the national psyche) than any "deo-centric" religion. And Codes of Conduct / Ethics have done more to ensure people behave well all week than "religion", which seems more concerned about behaving only on Sundays (or, at least, forgives you when you don't). Nonsense. Sport and codes of conduct did not provide the fundamental outlook and ways of organising society and human relationships.

Well they do now.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 11:00am:

What blether! I mean how many people actually travel across field, not to mention encountering tigers and two mice, one black the other white, on any day of the week?

And yet the point is not lost.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 11:00am:

Fascinating, Muso. You seem to be hopelessly stuck in the eternal last 5 minutes of intellectual fashion. A fashonista of ideas if there ever was one.

I think the question of morality is important enough to make it as clear as possible. The Buddhists seem to manage that ok.

Science could never be a religion because it is never permanently held to one belief. If tomorrow there was hard evidence to say that a giant starfish created the universe then science would accept that.
Religion is permanently sticking to one idea and believing in it for no other reason then you were told so.
Science is a study of reality and therefore could be nothing like religion.

Sappho wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 11:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 11:22pm: Sappho wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 1:27pm: Just for fun and without loosing any of the integrity inherent in Science, and because why it is not a Religion has been done to death, we might look at how real Religion, as aposed to Cults, are created and how we might embue a little of that Religion into Science! Read that twice and then tell me; Are you Interested? Ok then. How shall we begin? At the risk of being called names.....How do you define the differences between 'real' religion and a cult??? I'm not interested in childish name calling on the Ozpol forum... never have been... never will be. Otherwise, I just did a quick google and found this site which has a very sound layman's summary of the differences between cults and religions.

By this summation religion is a cult and science already a religion.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.