Well argued piece. I'm quite sure that KoM & Co. will have some choice names to call him.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I'm sorry, but what does that article have to do with evangelical atheists?
It seems more to be "one man's article about science not being able to know anything, so we might as well use faith."
Of course, I just perused it, so if there is something about atheists being evangelical in there, please correct me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There's nothing in there about evangelical atheists, but you missed the point of the article, Javert.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
This reminds me of the time I was visited by two missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Atheists.
You know, the Oxymormons.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's nothing in there about evangelical atheists, but you missed the point of the article, Javert.
Completely possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rather, evidence comes into view (or doesn’t) in the light of assumptions – there are authors or there aren’t — that produce the field of inquiry in the context of which (and only in the context of which) something can appear as evidence.
This is a pile of steaming crap. Saying "because some people say that a book has no single author due to cultural impact, evidence that a book was written by a single person cannot be considered valid" is ridiculous. Because the real flaw here is that the definition of "written" has not been established firmly enough; if both parties might agree on what it meant to "write" a book, the existing evidence would be perfectly sufficient.
So, too, is the whole "you have to have faith in something to make an argument" a useless canard. It's the same tired yawns from people who haven't bothered to do any real study of the subject (or, having finally realized they're on the losing side, have determined to fall back on fluff in desperation.)
When Fish presents these saws as if they are somehow defenses of the epistemological flaws of religious thought, he betrays a staggering hollowness in his willingness to examine his own thinking.
Edit: And I'm saying this as someone who spent the better part of a month wading through Taylor's Secular Age a while back, looking for sound arguments and generally being disappointed. Taylor makes the same points, but does it better; it takes a little longer to figure out where his logic falls apart.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom--
Don't you have a method for God to show you that He exists? I remember you saying something about it a while back...something about an envelope filled with slips of paper that you'll occasionally pull out.
??
How is that method (assuming I'm remembering correctly and assuming you weren't being facetious) different from the idea that evidence is at least partially dependent on assumptions?
If you pulled all those slips out of the envelope in the order that you've constructed to mean "Behold, there is a God?" would you believe, or would you assume that someone tampered with the envelope?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Pking gets it right. “To torpedo faith is to destroy the roots of . . . any system of knowledge . . . I challenge anyone to construct an argument proving reason’s legitimacy without presupposing it . . . Faith is the base, completely unavoidable. Get used to it. It’s the human condition.” (All of us, not just believers, see through a glass darkly.) Religious thought may be vulnerable on any number of fronts, but it is not vulnerable to the criticism that in contrast to scientific or empirical thought, it rests on mere faith.
I'm just posting the above quote because several atheists on this forum like to act as if I'm making definitions up out of thin air when I argue that "faith" is something that all reasoned beliefs rely upon. Apparently I'm not the only one with that conception of faith...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Don't you have a method for God to show you that He exists? I remember you saying something about it a while back...something about an envelope filled with slips of paper that you'll occasionally pull out.
I did. I tossed it a couple years ago, now.
quote:How is that method (assuming I'm remembering correctly and assuming you weren't being facetious) different from the idea that evidence is at least partially dependent on assumptions?
I am comfortable saying that my selection of certain specific criteria for a testable miracle was not primarily dependent upon "assumptions" but rather upon other testable data. I was confident that the miracle in question was not one that could have been reproduced by mortal hands, and that confidence was itself based upon my knowledge of mortal capabilities.
Either way, there is a huge distinction to be made here between that sort of "assumption" and a disagreement on what it means to write something.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yay, trolling. I'm a bit bored with religious debates recently, at some point you get to where they can only be 'settled' with guns, and I think Hatrack reached that point a while ago, short of getting some new people in. So I'm just posting (in this high-quality thread!) to say that if Lisa wants to have a flamewar, she can go answer my post in the Fed thread instead.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
To be honest, I don't think Lisa was trolling.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, Tom, I think that in context, Fish's point is a good one. He wasn't debating the word "written"; he was debating the idea of solitary authorship.
EDIT: He wasn't actually debating solitary authorship; he was pointing out that some people do not accept the idea of solitary authorship, and trying to construct a metaphor between reason and faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Tom--
Don't you have a method for God to show you that He exists? I remember you saying something about it a while back...something about an envelope filled with slips of paper that you'll occasionally pull out.
??
How is that method (assuming I'm remembering correctly and assuming you weren't being facetious) different from the idea that evidence is at least partially dependent on assumptions?
If you pulled all those slips out of the envelope in the order that you've constructed to mean "Behold, there is a God?" would you believe, or would you assume that someone tampered with the envelope?
I believe in God and I would assume that someone had tampered with the envelope.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: Difference is, scientific "faith" tends to be testable and repeatable. And it will change if contrary evidence appears.
Religious faith tends to ignore or even arrest the evidence.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:scientific "faith" tends to be testable and repeatable. And it will change if contrary evidence appears.
Religious faith tends to ignore or even arrest the evidence.
What evidence would that be, Pixiest?
Are you sure you're not confusing faith with doctrine?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: I was thinking along the lines of postulates. Things that are self evident. I'm not exactly sure what Tres was referring to. I was waiting for him to give me a stumper.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What evidence would that be, Pixiest?
Are you sure you're not confusing faith with doctrine?
Faith is the issue, not doctrine. I see religious faith, as practiced generally, being a sort of one-way mechanism like a ratchet wrench. From the perspective of the faithful, virtually any evidence either advances the mechanism or has no effect.
The mechanism just doesn't go in the other direction. Something good happens - God did it. Something bad happens - forces opposed to God did it/God had a good reason for doing it/God must allow bad things to happen for greater good.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I see religious faith, as practiced generally, being a sort of one-way mechanism like a ratchet wrench. From the perspective of the faithful, virtually any evidence either advances the mechanism or has no effect.
Which is what part of Fish's criticism of atheists like Dawkins focused on. Everything feeds into the assumption and gets churned out as evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. Nothing but the usual postmodernist babble. The question is not whether you can make some sort of debate-hall case for science being socially constructed and based in prior assumptions. That's a parlour game anyone can play. The question is whether you actually believe your case, and live accordingly, by for example being uncertain whether a your car will start this morning, or instead blow up and kill you - uncertain to the point where you walk to work instead. Nobody actually believes this of science when it comes to things that really affect their lives like the aforementioned car.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He wasn't actually debating solitary authorship; he was pointing out that some people do not accept the idea of solitary authorship, and trying to construct a metaphor between reason and faith.
And that's where he fails. Because even those people who do not accept the idea of solitary authorship will concede that just one person put those words to paper. They're just defining "author" differently for their own purposes. The evidence still shows what it has always shown, regardless of their choice of terms.
quote:Which is what part of Fish's criticism of atheists like Dawkins focused on.
No, that's what he thinks he's focused on. In reality, his criticism is absolutely toothless. Dawkins has been very clear about what evidence he would accept in this case.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:He wasn't actually debating solitary authorship; he was pointing out that some people do not accept the idea of solitary authorship, and trying to construct a metaphor between reason and faith.
And that's where he fails. Because even those people who do not accept the idea of solitary authorship will concede that just one person put those words to paper. They're just defining "author" differently for their own purposes. The evidence still shows what it has always shown, regardless of their choice of terms.
QFT
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:No, that's what he thinks he's focused on. In reality, his criticism is absolutely toothless. Dawkins has been very clear about what evidence he would accept in this case.
...which goes back to you and your envelope, and the different assumptions you make to buoy the evidence you think you've found.
quote:Nothing but the usual postmodernist babble. The question is not whether you can make some sort of debate-hall case for science being socially constructed and based in prior assumptions. That's a parlour game anyone can play. The question is whether you actually believe your case, and live accordingly, by for example being uncertain whether a your car will start this morning, or instead blow up and kill you - uncertain to the point where you walk to work instead. Nobody actually believes this of science when it comes to things that really affect their lives like the aforementioned car.
...because again, I've made assumptions on evidence, and live comfortably with them-- starting my car in the morning without worry, turning on lightbulbs at a whim, etc.
Religious faith works the same way. It's when we talk about religious doctrine (i.e., the sun revolves around the earth) that there are discrepancies. (And there may be a point of debate about how X amount of doctrines proven false leads to a decline in religious faith)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Religious faith works the same way.
I fail to see how. Which religious first principles are you "assuming" that are on the same order as "things that happen have causes?"
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:But the act of observing can itself only take place within hypotheses (about the way the world is) that cannot be observation’s objects because it is within them that observation and reasoning occur.
But he forgets the entire history of science. Darwin didn't, for example, set out with the hypothesis even that God didn't exist and that animals evolved. He went out with the idea that God did exist and that animals didn't evolve.
How in a million years is this feeding into a pre-existing hypothesis?
quote:And while there surely are facts, there are no facts (at least not ones we as human beings have access to) that simply declare themselves to the chainless minds Hitchens promises us if we will only cast aside the blinders of religion.
He willfully pretends this is what Hitchens meant, but this is a religious/spiritual interpretation of Hitchens' words. That thinking a certain way gives 'automatic answers'.
quote:Indeed, there are no chainless minds, and it’s a good thing, too. A chainless mind would be a mind not hostage to or fettered by any pre-conceptions, a mind that was free to go its own way. But how could you go any way if you are not anywhere, if you are not planted in some restricted location in relation to which the directions “here,” “there” and “elsewhere” have a sense?
Uh, yeah. This is where we get to the point where the argument starts to wander. He's stretched Hitchens' simple, straight forward request so far that of course it makes no sense!
quote:“Why is Stanley Fish so much smarter than Richard Dawkins?”
Stanley Fish may indeed be just as intelligent as Richard Dawkins on IQ tests. However, Richard Dawkins, for all his dabbling in theological arguments, is a man of science; a scientist, who deals with scientific, not sociological, not theological, not psychological, not historical or legal evidence: science.
Fish is a lawyer.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
First causes again?
I'm going to have to look up the last discussion we had on this; I'm not seeing the connection.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:...because again, I've made assumptions on evidence, and live comfortably with them-- starting my car in the morning without worry, turning on lightbulbs at a whim, etc.
Right, and these assumptions you rely on for your actual life are not the same ones you make for your religion. The arguments you propose for the existence of your god would never convince you to invest money in a startup. Separate magisteria, indeed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:these assumptions you rely on for your actual life are not the same ones you make for your religion.
How do you know?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because if they were, you would reach the right conclusion, just as you do for whether your car is safe to switch on.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Perhaps what KoM is driving at is that religious claims (at least those of modern sizable religions) are comfortably undisprovable.
If you had a switch in your house that you believed you were supposed to flip every day, and if you were in the right frame of mind (as judged by God) the result should be a happy feeling, it wouldn't be subject to the same kind of testing as the light switch.
Fish asserts that we're all in a frame of mind that blinds us to observations that might undermine our assumptions. He might be right, but science provides a framework to identify and test those assumptions until you get to some really fundamental stuff, while with religion you kind of have to operate at the highest level; i.e. believe it or not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: because again, I've made assumptions on evidence, and live comfortably with them-- starting my car in the morning without worry, turning on lightbulbs at a whim, etc.
If your assumptions were that you car would reliably start every winter during a winter where it got to be 20 below every night, you would not live that comfortably. You would reason from evidence to conclusion that your car might not start in the morning.
quote:Religious faith works the same way.
I don't think it does. People chuck their assumptions about the reilability of their cars once their cars stop starting. What evidence would falsify your religious assumptions?
quote:It's when we talk about religious doctrine (i.e., the sun revolves around the earth) that there are discrepancies.
How do you distingush between a conclusion that is a doctrine, and a conclusion of faith?
You might separate religious claims into physical ones that science can touch and non-physical ones, but that's a pretty modern concept, driven largely by Western religions getting egg on their face so often. Throughout the history of the world, most people haven't drawn those distinctions and lots of people to day still wouldn't. So this "Religous faith is this, and religious doctrine is this" is historically a distinct minority view, so it shouldn't be presented as if it were obviously the right way to analyze things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Scott, would you like to have a discussion on this? If not, please say so and then go away. If you would instead like to be an annoying gadfly with nothing serious to say, I'm sure there are lots of places on the internet that need you badly.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Paging Scott R... paging Scott R. White courtesy telephone please!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The entire article is an equivalency argument on a weak premise. I'm always very wary of propositions that try to make science just 'a type of faith,' when that blatantly discounts the very real differences between science and religion, and more importantly, the things that science has that has made it the more important factor in our lives.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Scott, would you like to have a discussion on this? If not, please say so and then go away. If you would instead like to be an annoying gadfly with nothing serious to say, I'm sure there are lots of places on the internet that need you badly.
Can you explain what you meant by:
quote: KoM: these assumptions you rely on for your actual life are not the same ones you make for your religion. The arguments you propose for the existence of your god would never convince you to invest money in a startup. Separate magisteria, indeed.
Scott: ____ these assumptions you rely on for your actual life are not the same ones you make for your religion. ____
How do you know?
KoM: Because if they were, you would reach the right conclusion, just as you do for whether your car is safe to switch on.
Specifically the last post. What it seems like you're saying is that if I were using the same logic that I use to determine whether or not it's safe to start my car in the morning, I'd also not be religious.
From my point of view, there's little difference. I test both systems daily using much of the same processes; both systems (the spiritual and the temporal) give me a great deal of satisfaction and happiness.
quote:If your assumptions were that you car would reliably start every winter during a winter where it got to be 20 below every night, you would not live that comfortably. You would reason from evidence to conclusion that your car might not start in the morning.
As it so happens, I lived in Wisconsin, where it reached 20 below often enough. We had this thing we plugged into our engine every night to keep it warm. The car started reliably, every morning, and I was comfortable with life. I'm not sure what the point of your analogy is.
quote:People chuck their assumptions about the reilability of their cars once their cars stop starting. What evidence would falsify your religious assumptions?
There are a number of things. But this discussion isn't about me. I have my doubts, and I have reason to continue guiding me. Reason continues to guide me in the path of Mormonism.
quote: this "Religous faith is this, and religious doctrine is this" is historically a distinct minority view, so it shouldn't be presented as if it were obviously the right way to analyze things.
Why not? If it's true, I don't care how many people haven't known about it, it's valuable to me and I'm going to use it.
quote:Paging Scott R... paging Scott R. White courtesy telephone please!
This is why I didn't pick up. My phone's red.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Reason continues to guide me in the path of Mormonism."
Would you care to expound on this?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From my point of view, there's little difference. I test both systems daily using much of the same processes; both systems (the spiritual and the temporal) give me a great deal of satisfaction and happiness.
So does the placebo effect.
Do you really think it's accurate to categorize the sucesses of science, across all its fields, as being no better than the placebo effect?
quote:
quote: this "Religous faith is this, and religious doctrine is this" is historically a distinct minority view, so it shouldn't be presented as if it were obviously the right way to analyze things.
Why not?
Do you know nothing of history? Religious people have punished each other and killed each other for making scientific claims that were actually accurate. So for you to airily state "Oh, its easy, you have your faith over here, and your doctrines way over there, and you won't have problems as long as you keep them separate" is silly. If it were that easy, everyone religious for thousands of years would think like that.
Or, to put it a way you might understand better. Running Mormons out of town 200 years ago, based on a blending of politics, religious faith and religious doctrines, made lots of people happy and satisfied.
So if those are the criteria by which you are judging ideas, perhaps you shouldn't take it as obvious that that line of thinking is inferior to yours.
quote:If it's true,
Okay, thats's great. How do you determine that it's true without a way of detecting that it's false? History shows us that rigorous reality testing is the only realiable way to find falsehood, and that means putting your ideas up to tests which they can fail.
quote:I don't care how many people haven't known about it, it's valuable to me and I'm going to use it.
Brilliant, can you tell us how?
If someone says to you "My faith tells me that the scriptures are 100% accurate, and the world is 6000 year old", is that faith, or doctrine?
What about the line in Acts about true believers being able to drink poison and not die? Faith or doctrine?
How do you determine this?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Reason continues to guide me in the path of Mormonism."
Would you care to expound on this?
My conviction that the Church is true isn't pertinent to this conversation. How I arrived at it is: I insist that I used the logical faculties available to any person who has a normal, functioning mind, and who is capable of independent thought.
quote:Do you really think it's accurate to categorize the sucesses of science, across all its fields, as being no better than the placebo effect?
I didn't say this, or categorize science's achievements in this way-- you did. I have no idea why you did, but I certainly don't agree with your characterization of my statements.
I really don't understand what you're driving at in the rest of your post, swbarnes. You seem to making assumptions about things I said that I didn't say.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I insist that I used the logical faculties available to any person who has a normal, functioning mind, and who is capable of independent thought.
In what specific capacities? Can you lay out the evidence you used, and the conclusions you drew from that evidence?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...I'm a bit bored with religious debates recently, at some point you get to where they can only be 'settled' with guns, and I think Hatrack reached that point a while ago...
If it has, you should take pride in your substantial contribution to that state of affairs.
quote: If not, please say so and then go away.
Why? You explicitly said you didn't want a discussion on it, yet stuck around.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Religious faith works the same way.
I fail to see how. Which religious first principles are you "assuming" that are on the same order as "things that happen have causes?"
I think this question needs to be answered. Part of Fish's argument seems to be a rather convoluted way of pointing out there everything rests on starting premises. I've seen this point brought up before and I don't understand it all. It absolutely does not follow that if A and B both have starting premises then A and B require the same amount of faith.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In what specific capacities? Can you lay out the evidence you used, and the conclusions you drew from that evidence?
For myself, absolutely not. I don't trust this audience enough with that information. I'm not a missionary any longer.
Generally, though, I think that people come to religious faith the same way they come to scientific knowledge: they have experiences or come across accounts of other people's experiences and something ignites within them. Depending on their personality and environment, they may choose to learn more. What they learn affects their knowledge and attitude toward the system they're studying.
I'm not sure why the process is so sacrosanct to science; it's reasoning and logic, and it's available to all human endeavors. What I suspect makes people object to this line of thinking isn't the process, but the evidence.
Which I've harped on enough here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Which I've harped on enough here.
And yet, Scott, here's the thing: no one who claims to have such compelling, rational evidence will ever share it.
You understand, of course, why that makes those of us who're skeptical of their rationality deeply suspicious of the quality of that evidence.
quote:I think that people come to religious faith the same way they come to scientific knowledge...
I know a lot of religious people who think that. But I don't know a single areligious person who does. I suspect that there is -- speaking frankly -- a deficiency in religious thinking that renders its adherents unable to make the distinction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:here's the thing: no one who claims to have such compelling, rational evidence will ever share it.
You understand, of course, why that makes those of us who're skeptical of their rationality deeply suspicious of the quality of that evidence.
On the contrary-- people who have rational claims for why they believe what they believe share these things quite often.
They just don't share them in hostile environments, usually. The same goes for scientists.
quote:But I don't know a single areligious person who does. I suspect that there is -- speaking frankly -- a deficiency in religious thinking that renders its adherents unable to make the distinction.
You're making a false correlation-- that scientific == areligious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They just don't share them in hostile environments, usually. The same goes for scientists.
This is the opposite of my experience. In fact, science is generally practiced in a hostile environment. You can even argue that the scientific method relies upon the creation of a hostile environment.
quote:You're making a false correlation-- that scientific == areligious.
Not really. I'm saying that I don't know a single areligious person who thinks that religious thought can be scientific, while I know several religious people who insist otherwise. In fact, many of the religious people I know seem confused by this sort of conversation, as if the distinction being made here is one that they're literally not capable of perceiving. An obvious possible explanation for this is that one of the consequences of religious thinking is a lower bar for what is considered "rational."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:This is the opposite of my experience. In fact, science is generally practiced in a hostile environment. You can even argue that the scientific method relies upon the creation of a hostile environment.
I think you are conflating skeptical with hostile (Or else not doing hostility justice). In a truly hostile environment, scientists couldn't get the funding they need to conduct their research and progress would be severely hindered. Other scientists would sabotage their research, thus making their findings suspect, scientists would also use lies and slander to keep journals from publishing the papers of other scientists.
There are plenty of historical examples where the people were hostile towards science, and it's doubtful you could effectively argue that the sciences then experienced a burst of energy, more likely it was noticeably encumbered.
Hostile environments also make for great individual religious conviction. Few things reinforce desire to hold to ones beliefs than to have another entity try to attack that loyalty.
But as for being an environment where people can discuss things of a very personal nature, and challenge each other on an intellectual, emotional, and especially spiritual level, a hostile environment is a terrible place for such exchanges.
As a missionary I experienced the full gamut of environments for proselyting. I found simple minded people to often be as frustrating as angry ones. A hostile environment is terrible for persuading somebody to discard a belief they are invested in.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In fact, science is generally practiced in a hostile environment.
I don't think you're using the word 'hostile' the way I used it above.
Would you expect an evolutionary biologist to embrace the idea of giving an in depth presentation to a group of active YECs?
quote: I'm saying that I don't know a single areligious person who thinks that religious thought can be scientific, while I know several religious people who insist otherwise. In fact, many of the religious people I know seem confused by this sort of conversation, as if the distinction being made here is one that they're literally not capable of perceiving. An obvious possible explanation for this is that one of the consequences of religious thinking is a lower bar for what is considered "rational."
I can understand that reaction-- because for whatever reason, the areligious cannot see the evidence that is so clearly seen by the religious.
Perception-envy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think you're using the word 'hostile' the way I used it above.
Then you were using it incorrectly. Because if you shared your religious experiences here, I can guarantee you that you'd get a lot of skepticism, but no one would try to burn you at the stake or cut off your funding.
quote: I can understand that reaction-- because for whatever reason, the areligious cannot see the evidence that is so clearly seen by the religious.
You'll forgive me for not hewing to that interpretation, given how afraid the religious apparently are of exposing their evidence to the light of day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Then you were using it incorrectly. Because if you shared your religious experiences here, I can guarantee you that you'd get a lot of skepticism, but no one would try to burn you at the stake or cut off your funding.
Can you guarantee that his sharing of that experience wouldn't be met with scorn, condescension, ridicule, contempt, or mockery? That's a rhetorical question: I know you can't.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Forgiveness granted.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I can understand that reaction-- because for whatever reason, the areligious cannot see the evidence that is so clearly seen by the religious.
Perception-envy.
The a-schizophrenic cannot see the people or hear the voices so clearly seen and heard by the schizophrenic. Don't assume that's a problem with the a-schizophrenic.
(And yes, I know, that is a rather extreme comparison. But I think the analogy holds.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet science can be done perfectly well despite scorn, condescension, mockery, and contempt. And furthermore, I can guarantee you that you'd be "met" with those things from at most two people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The a-schizophrenic cannot see the people or hear the voices so clearly seen and heard by the schizophrenic. Don't assume that's a problem with the a-schizophrenic.
But the reverse is true as well. The reality perceived by the schizophrenic (and bless you for using the term correctly) is indeed not the same as that perceived by the non-schizophrenic. But for an external observer, determining which of those realities is the real one is non-trivial. As anyone who saw "A Beautiful Mind" can tell you. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And yet science can be done perfectly well despite scorn, condescension, mockery, and contempt. And furthermore, I can guarantee you that you'd be "met" with those things from at most two people.
Tom: I know I'm jumping in where I was not addressed, if you'd like me to stop I will. There are plenty examples of people discussing their religious beliefs to a hostile crowd, but almost all of those are because God commanded it, and gave the unbelieving one last chance to turn away from iniquity. A person can also find God amidst persecution, contempt, and mockery. But neither science or religion can be effectively transferred to the minds of other people in those environments.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And yet science can be done perfectly well despite scorn, condescension, mockery, and contempt. And furthermore, I can guarantee you that you'd be "met" with those things from at most two people.
Should I assume that you do not consider yourself one of the two?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I wouldn't consider Tom among one of those two. I think part of the problem is that people tend to take criticisms of their beliefs personally. That sort of reaction is beyond Tom's control (mostly).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Threads:
You're a delusional idiot.
How you interpret my words is beyond my control. If you're offended where no offense is meant, I suggest that you're insecure as well as delusional and stupid.
Yeah, Tom's pretty much advocated that line before, too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I wouldn't consider Tom among one of those two. I think part of the problem is that people tend to take criticisms of their beliefs personally. That sort of reaction is beyond Tom's control.
It most certainly is not. Tom would have full control in how he petitions a person into sharing their reasons for believing as they do. It's a two person effort as the other person has to decide how they will respond.
Saying in effect, "See you've got nothing otherwise you'd bust it out, but you've got nothing so you won't, see!" Is not going to open doors that should be opened. In fact a person who responds to such a challenge would likely be doing it out of pride not out of any respect for God.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I would be interested in hearing some compelling evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For the record: I would call -- and have called -- someone who believed they had spoken to God "delusional," in the same way I have been comfortable calling my brother "delusional" when he claimed that he heard the radio speaking to him. I would almost certainly not call people "idiots," however. And I wouldn't call someone who simply thought they had in some way felt the presence of God "delusional," because the odds are that they certainly did indeed perceive a feeling and are only mistaken in their interpretation of the event.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom, you have ways of calling people idiots without ever using the word. It's almost inconceivable to me that you're not aware of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Tom, you have ways of calling people idiots without ever using the word. It's almost inconceivable to me that you're not aware of it.
QFT
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Threads:
You're a delusional idiot.
How you interpret my words is beyond my control. If you're offended where no offense is meant, I suggest that you're insecure as well as delusional and stupid.
Yeah, Tom's pretty much advocated that line before, too.
I haven't seen him make a statement like that without additional qualifiers and subtlety that change the meaning quite a bit. I also don't think that I should answer for Tom anyways and I'm sorry for starting this line of discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think if anyone here thinks that I think they're an idiot (with, honesty compels me to admit, a few exceptions who haven't posted on this thread), they're actually stupider than I thought.
All joking aside, I do not think that irrational people are idiotic people. I've said before that I have absolutely no difficulty believing that, if I tried hard enough, I could convince myself of the existence of a God. Does anyone here think I think I'm an idiot? I'm merely acutely aware of the limitations of reason in the face of human desire.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I believe in God because I want to. Is that irrational?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think there are irrational people at all-- only people who haven't examined all the evidence that exists.
Logic and critical thinking are not the sole domains of science, or of the areligious. Study, contemplation, discussion-- these things are as vital (IMO) to a person who is concerned with their spirituality as they are to a scientist.
Granted, in recent years, literalists and fundamentalists have given formalized reasoning a bad name in religious circles. I can't call them irrational-- they have reasons for the way they believe-- but I will call their beliefs unexamined and incomplete. They are still using the same processes to evaluate the information they have, but their assumptions filter the evidence they're willing to consider.
Which brings us back to the start.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I believe in God because I want to. Is that irrational?
Completely. It's like Kansas voting to make Pi = 3 because it would be easier on the students.
All the wishing in the world doesn't make God true.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I believe in God because I want to. Is that irrational?
Completely. It's like Kansas voting to make Pi = 3 because it would be easier on the students.
All the wishing in the world doesn't make God true.
Doesn't make it false, either.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It *does* make it faulty reasoning.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can't call them irrational-- they have reasons for the way they believe...
Are you defining "rational" as "possessing reasons for things?"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
At this point we don't know the reasoning behind the desire and conclusion.
Pixiest is doing a good job proving my point, by the way.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Do you believe in god simply because you WANT to believe in god?
I want to hear your evidence. I'd love for it to convince me. But you're going to get challenged every step of the way.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't think there are irrational people at all-- only people who haven't examined all the evidence that exists.
Logic and critical thinking are not the sole domains of science, or of the areligious. Study, contemplation, discussion-- these things are as vital (IMO) to a person who is concerned with their spirituality as they are to a scientist.
Granted, in recent years, literalists and fundamentalists have given formalized reasoning a bad name in religious circles. I can't call them irrational-- they have reasons for the way they believe-- but I will call their beliefs unexamined and incomplete. They are still using the same processes to evaluate the information they have, but their assumptions filter the evidence they're willing to consider.
Which brings us back to the start.
Would you consider the use of a logical fallacy in an argument to be irrational?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: It *does* make it faulty reasoning.
Really? It's faulty reasoning to believe in God because I want to believe in God? All the reasoning in the world can't draw a conclusion one way or the other (and believe me, I've tried) so I can't think of anything else it would come down to save what made me happier....what I wanted to believe. Those who believe that there is no God do so through at least as strong an act of faith. They can talk about purple unicorns all they want to try to show that the lack of belief in God is the default position because, I suppose, thinking that way makes them happier.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Those who believe that there is no God do so through at least as strong an act of faith.
Completely false.
How does not believing in something due to the lack of good evidence to support it amount to anything even remotely like 'faith'?
You can deride the use of unicorns as a counter-example, but I don't see where it fails.
I don't believe in unicorns because there's no good evidence for their existence. Not because I 'have faith' that unicorns don't exist.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Generally, though, I think that people come to religious faith the same way they come to scientific knowledge: they have experiences or come across accounts of other people's experiences and something ignites within them.
You don't undersand science at all.
The whole virtue of scientific knowledge isn't just the collecting of facts, it's the rigorous reality testing. You have to put your knowledge to a test that it can fail.
Do you think that the mother in Wausau, whose daughter died becuase she got no diabetes treatment, only prayer, has concluded that her beliefs failed the test? Or will she keep believing, regardless of the evidence right before her eyes that her belief that God would keep her child alive without medicine was utterly false?
Do you think when Daniel Hauser dies from his untreated cancer, that his mother will change her mind about the validity of her religious beliefs?
Ria Ramkissoon, who starved her toddler to death for religious reasons, still thinks that he will be resurrected. What evidence do you think she would accept as disproving that claim?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Christine: What is your goal here? If it's to be happier, then yes, believing in god is rational. If it's to find what is true, then your argument falls flat on its face.
What makes you happy does not define reality. There are a lot of ugly, painful, hateful things in life that are undeniably true. It would make everyone a lot happier if they just went away. But they still exist.
What would make me happy would be a giant chocolate waterfall (with dark chocolate "rocks") that I could eat and drink from all day long without getting fat. But no matter how much I try to believe it exists, I don't have one in my back yard.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: It *does* make it faulty reasoning.
Really? It's faulty reasoning to believe in God because I want to believe in God?
Is is faulty reasoning to believe that your child's cancer will go away with prayer because you want it to?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The main pieces of evidence that have combined to lead me to believe in God are: *The fact that the way of life modeled by Christ seems to lead people to become good people *The stories recorded in the Bible, even if not perfectly accurate *Personal testimony from quite a few people who say they've experienced God *The fact that belief in God has become so widely accepted, by so many different religions, leading me to suspect there's something to it *The fact that it appears to me that the universe has a spiritual aspect to it, which doesn't directly give evidence of God per se, but which does open the door to that possibility
You can argue that these don't necessarily prove anything, which of course is true. They don't prove God exists, and to someone who has a desire to not believe in God, such evidence won't force them to believe. But, as I see it, the "evidence for" should be weighed along with the "evidence against". And the evidence against God's existence seems to be... not really much at all. The problem of evil and the question of why God doesn't reveal himself more clearly are the big ones in my book, and that's not really enough, because both seem like they could have reasonable answers.
The argument can and is made that other religions are just as backed by evidence as mine. That's true too - but I'm not going to reject all religion just because many different religions have similar degrees of evidence backing them. Instead I'm just going to conclude that some religious belief system is probably true, that most are probably at least in some part true, and try to make my best estimate as to which one is most accurate. It's the best I can do on an issue where logical certainty is impossible.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But, as I see it, the "evidence for" should be weighed along with the "evidence against".
The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The only person I'm proving it to is the person making the claim - myself.
Y'all were just asking about what such evidence might be, so I gave mine.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
tres: Could you elaborate on the "Spiritual aspect" part? I hear people throwing around "Spiritual" all the time in many different contexts and they can't all possibly mean the same thing.
Thank you for posting why you believe. Do you want me to go through why I don't find any of them compelling or are you fine with leaving it at that?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If anyone is curious what some philosophers think of Fish's article:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Christine: What is your goal here? If it's to be happier, then yes, believing in god is rational. If it's to find what is true, then your argument falls flat on its face.
I gave up trying to figure out what was true a long time ago. The world doesn't break down neatly into true and false, despite the rationalists' desire that it do so. Once you get much past the existence of a chair and start to talk about things like love, evil, hope, the nature of man, and God, then true and false are no longer rational or observable constructs.
What is my goal? I don't really have one. When I said I believe in God because I want to believe in God I was talking to both sides of this debate: To those who believe in God I say I have never seen any proof that he exists. To those who do not believe in God (or more precisely, to those who believe there is no God), I say why the heck shouldn't I? Does it hurt anyone to believe in God?
I'm not looking for truth. It's a highly biased concept and it never ceases to amaze me how easily "truth" becomes whatever we want to believe. So I believe in God because I want to. I also believe in hope, love, and good intentions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:tres: Could you elaborate on the "Spiritual aspect" part? I hear people throwing around "Spiritual" all the time in many different contexts and they can't all possibly mean the same thing.
I knew someone was going to ask that.... That was the vaguest and most confusing (to me) of the ones I listed. It's also very fluid; my opinions on it next year will probably be different from this year. By "spiritual" I mean something along the lines of "relating to the soul." I believe in the existence of a soul, of an objective morality, and of meaning (as in, I think happiness is literally a meaningful thing, rather than just a function human beings have which determines their behavior.) I think those things are interrelated, and not fully explained by any physical objects in the world. I don't think I could give a clear explanation all at once as to why I consider this to be the case, but it is mostly from introspection, and I've explained pieces of it previously in other threads. The reason this relates to God is because, in my view, if souls can exist then other soul-like things don't really seem that bizarre - God and the after-life would fall in that category.
As I said, this is the least clear of any of the reasons I gave, but I figured I should include it because it does have an influence on what I end up believing.
quote:Do you want me to go through why I don't find any of them compelling or are you fine with leaving it at that?
If you have a unusual reason you could, but otherwise I suspect I already know. I doubt there's much compelling about them without corresponding experiences in life.
[ May 21, 2009, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Once you get much past the existence of a chair and start to talk about things like love, evil, hope, the nature of man, and God, then true and false are no longer rational or observable constructs.
That's only true if you're framing the question incorrectly. There's no reason that any construct cannot be rational. In fact, I believe all constructs are on some level rationalized.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Does it hurt anyone to believe in God?
Depends... who are you willing to hurt for your belief in god? How much of your own will are you willing to surrender? How far are you willing to go oppose those who believe differently or not at all? Prop 8? 9/11?
People need to believe what they believe, but don't deny that religion has no consequences... Especially when it crosses into the public arena.
That being said, I don't think YOU believing in god hurts anyone.
quote: it never ceases to amaze me how easily "truth" becomes whatever we want to believe.
True. Unless finding out what IS true becomes important. Losing my faith sucked monkey butt. I clung to it like a life preserver as long as I possibly could. It's difficult, when you've grown up with the promise of Heaven, to realize it's all just something they tell us to make us feel better about the constant pain of living. To give in to the fact that when you die, it's over and the cake is a lie.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can't prove that. You believe it, but you don't know it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: Does it hurt anyone to believe in God?
Depends... who are you willing to hurt for your belief in god? How much of your own will are you willing to surrender? How far are you willing to go oppose those who believe differently or not at all? Prop 8? 9/11?
People need to believe what they believe, but don't deny that religion has no consequences... Especially when it crosses into the public arena.
I don't necessarily think belief in God caused these terrible things to happen. It is belief in one's own unfailing righteousness and the need to bend everyone else to one's own will. That arises from human nature, and if God were never in the picture, they'd have come up with some other excuse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We can certainly see that it doesn't take a belief in God to create a prideful certainty of one's own rectitude and infallibility.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]Would you expect an evolutionary biologist to embrace the idea of giving an in depth presentation to a group of active YECs?
Yes, in fact, I would. And it often happens, at debates, in high school classrooms, and on internet forums. So often on the latter that there are entire websites devoted to answering the most common objections, so that one can simply point at the standard response instead of having to type it out every time. I do not think you can accuse evolutionary biologists of being reluctant to share their data with anyone.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: things like love, evil, hope, the nature of man, and God
One of these things is not like the others; one of these things does not belong.
quote:I believe in God because I want to. Is that irrational?
Yes. If any other word were substituted for 'God' in that sentence, you would not even ask the question.
quote:Specifically the last post. What it seems like you're saying is that if I were using the same logic that I use to determine whether or not it's safe to start my car in the morning, I'd also not be religious.
Yes. Precisely.
quote:From my point of view, there's little difference. I test both systems daily using much of the same processes; both systems (the spiritual and the temporal) give me a great deal of satisfaction and happiness.
Your state of mind is evidence that your mind works in certain ways when you perform X actions. It is not evidence of anything external to your skull; nor do you treat it as such, when anyone else's mind is involved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can't prove that. You believe it, but you don't know it.
And it's possible that, just below the congratulatory furnace, there really was a cake. Certainly the ending cut scene might be interpreted as proof that, somewhere, a cake existed. There's no proof that cake would not be provided. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's actually pie.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's actually pie.
A pizza-pie.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's actually pie.
HERETIC! BURN HIM!
Oh, wait, wrong religion.
STONE HIM!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This is the opposite of my experience. In fact, science is generally practiced in a hostile environment. You can even argue that the scientific method relies upon the creation of a hostile environment.
Really I would like to see what science would be like if it were "publish" rather than "publish or perish." Scholarly review as a Gold Star For Effort Good Job! environment.
No honestly everyone tom is absolutely right here. The scientific world is excruciating and brutal and it only works because it is tearing itself down constantly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Until they get tenure.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The scientific world is excruciating and brutal and it only works because it is tearing itself down constantly.
:amused:
I would have used the words 'rigorous' and 'exacting.'
I think your conclusion isn't logical.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's actually pie.
I think Tom was making a Portal (computer game) reference. A nice sounding robot with progressively obvious sinister motives keeps coxing you along with promises of cake.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Mmmm.... cake. Now I'm hungry. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:*The fact that the way of life modeled by Christ seems to lead people to become good people...
Good people aren't good people because they are religious. They are good people because they are emotionally sound people, who happen to use religion as a way of structuring their moral code.
There is no evidence that people are "better" if they are devout. It just makes emotionally unsound people take different, church-determined routes to express their emotional unsoundness.
You may argue that 'evil' Christians aren't Christians who follow the life of Christ and that the Bible almost certainly doesn't advocate child abuse.
Well-- it doesn't seem to prevent it.
quote:Really I would like to see what science would be like if it were "publish" rather than "publish or perish."
Go back fifty years. People still carried out reasonably sound scientific work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi, you think that, but you don't really know either. You don't know any of that - it's just your opinion. You don't how many would be worse off without their religion.
The existence of sinners hardly proves that the atonement which was created precisely for sinners is untrue. It's like pointing at people with broken legs as proof that modern medicine is a sham.
There are so many misconceptions here, no wonder there can't be any real conversations. I've never so much tilting at windmills in my life. When you attack someone and they wonder why you are throwing yourself at a straw man two counties over, it isn't a devestating triumph when you don't hit anything.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
katharina: It's hard to take you seriously when only tresopax will give any arguments of why he believes. (well, and Christine's "I believe because I want to" statement)
Both you and Scott have expressed a deep desire not to have your rational vetted.
So answer me this.. Why don't you believe in Thor? Thor's a good guy with a mighty hammer. And the way he saves us all from Frost Giants is certainly noble... What makes you think he doesn't exist?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Teshi, you think that, but you don't really know either. You don't know any of that - it's just your opinion. You don't how many would be worse off without their religion.
You've made statements like a number of times and I don't understand what you are trying to show. It can be rational to not know something is true yet also not remain agnostic about it. I don't see why Teshi's opinion should be discounted just because it is an opinion (maybe that's not what you were saying but you haven't been very detailed in your responses and that's how it comes across).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think, "it doesn't seem to prevent abuse" with a link to a horrible abuse scandal is particularly a huge leap.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest: No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
Not the same thing.
Teshi: It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the claims and purpose of Christianity. A magical immunity to sin was never one of the claims.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Teshi: It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the claims and purpose of Christianity. A magical immunity to sin was never one of the claims.
Whoever said this disagrees with you:
quote:*The fact that the way of life modeled by Christ seems to lead people to become good people...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath: Awww.. *kisses* I feel the same way about you too, sweetheart.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
Then why the hell are you talking to us, oh gentle, unbiased, open-minded, humble, charitable, polite and worthy person that you are?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest: No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
...
except to lecture and vent hostilities at, apparently.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Anyway, thank you, Trex, for providing your reasons.
It's always interesting to see such things.
Perhaps, sometime, I should present, in a similar fashion, my reasons for believing something different, and I can expose myself to the danger of ridicule from the other side too!
If you'd like, I could do so.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest: No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
I'm not saying that you are wrong to believe that katharina, and though it may be presumptuous and down right arrogant of me to say, I find that when one goes into an argument with this deeply held belief, the belief itself becomes self-fulfilling. Just saying.
That applies to everyone I think. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
Of course, the thread was created as an act of charity toward us evangelical atheists.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Jews don't do charity. Jews do tzedakah.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: Jews don't do charity. Jews do tzedakah.
A bunch of non-Jewish homeless people memorized that word outside my school. They mispronounce it when they ask for tzedakah. I thought that was cool that they learned the Jewish word for charity because they thought it would score them cash. Actually, it does.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi: It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the claims and purpose of Christianity. A magical immunity to sin was never one of the claims.
Javert already pointed out who I was responding to. I do not say that following Christianity makes people bad or better, which is what the original poster seem to be claiming. You seem to agree that it doesn't make people immune from sin as well. Therefore, we agree.
I, personally, do not believe that religion is necessarily evil. People seem to manage evil deeds without religion just as they manage good ones.
I would be perfectly okay with unconditionally tolerating religion were it not for my belief that although religion does not promote evil acts it excessively complicates situations. Would Israel be quite so complicated and inextricable if it weren't for religion? Would Islamic terrorists be quite so righteously violent? Would Fred Phelps be visible at all? "I hate fags" doesn't have a fraction of the punch as "God hates fags".
Would the fear of Jews that dug deep into Europe have been quite so deep if the differences had been 'only' cultural? Perhaps. With religion gone, culture and nationalism would reign supreme: Communism killed thousands, perhaps millions, without invoking God.
But I think invoking God still adds a certain cachet to arguments that nationalism doesn't. A war of Heaven is a step easier to justify than a war of ideas, although the latter has its own virulence. A war of Heaven is one step more difficult to escape from.
Religion carries its share of positive effects, especially at the individual level. The Red Cross and like organizations have their roots in religious orders. But religion provides a highly convenient seat for what are ultimately personal beliefs, fears, prejudices etc. We may fear or mistrust the ideas that Galileo or Darwin bring to the table, but without the weight of God behind us, we are just men opposing men (so to speak). Historically, that has been less complicated to untie.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Teshi: It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the claims and purpose of Christianity. A magical immunity to sin was never one of the claims.
Whoever said this disagrees with you:
quote:*The fact that the way of life modeled by Christ seems to lead people to become good people...
Becoming a better person doesn't mean you have become a perfect person. Everyone still make mistakes sometimes, and sometimes they are horrible mistakes. So, I don't believe that Christianity gives an immunity to sin.
Incidently, I should add that there are people who intend to be Christian who seem to me to be clearly not following the model of Christ. For instance, the ones who seem overly angry and hateful - I've never quite understood how they could come to interpret Christianity in such a way, but I don't believe it helps them much (at least in this life).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest: No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
I'm not saying that you are wrong to believe that katharina, and though it may be presumptuous and down right arrogant of me to say, I find that when one goes into an argument with this deeply held belief, the belief itself becomes self-fulfilling. Just saying.
Nope, I came to this conclusion after years of experiences. I used to be much, much more open and the crappy, horrible, dreadful, and unfortunate experiences on Hatrack led me to this conclusion.
It is definitely not what I want to be true. It is very apparent that it is, however.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: For instance, the ones who seem overly angry and hateful - I've never quite understood how they could come to interpret Christianity in such a way, but I don't believe it helps them much (at least in this life).
Jesus in the temple seemed a bit angry and hateful. (Whether justifiably or not.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Some people seem to think that love means being angry and hateful. And Javert is right, Jesus himself is not entirely immune from this. He says specifically that he has come to break families apart, for example, should the entire family not convert. Depending on how you interpret the story, he killed that tree for apparently not bearing good fruit.
I think many people justify trying to improve the godliness of others with hateful actions, as they believe that ultimately they are undertaking an act of love.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Becoming a better person doesn't mean you have become a perfect person.
Who's expecting perfection? All those Irish priets and nuns took vows to serve Christ. No one asked or expected them to be perfect, they were asked to not beat, rape, and otherwise abuse their charges. Do you really think that this is too high a standard to hold people to when they claim to be trying to live like Christ?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But the problem is not the vow. It's that they didn't keep it.
Don't blame religion; blame human nature.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
That would be my point if I were involved in this discussion... religion doesn't really make people behave any better than not-religion.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
rivka, we're not "blaming religion", that's the point (or at least, I'm not). Somebody made the claim that people who endeavour to "be like Christ" (which within accepted boundaries nuns and priests are supposed to) "seem" to be better people than those who do not.
I linked to the news article and said, "clearly not". It wasn't religion that drove these people to abuse children, but religion didn't prevent the abuse either. It likely would have happened with or without religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posting a single counterexample doesn't prove what you think it did. You can't point to Bill Gates and say he proves it's better for you financially to drop out of college.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps not. Religion does give you, to a greater extent than other kinds of human organisation, authority figures which cannot easily be questioned. Notice, for example, the lack of official reaction at the time to these abuses even when they became known. Unaccountable authority leads to abuses no matter the source, this is just a sad fact about humans; but religion is a particularly fertile source of such authority.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Particularly"? Really? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness, can you imagine how horrible those people would have been otherwise!
KoM, I would say that (as well as other lesser organizations) the military has the same authority hierarchical structure.
And I am a big fan of questioning authority in general.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Goodness, can you imagine how horrible those people would have been otherwise!"
Well, yeah. All I have to do is read about them. If you honestly think religion makes people better than they would be otherwise, I'd say you probably haven't looked very closely at the issue.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, I would say that (as well as other lesser organizations) the military has the same authority hierarchical structure.
Yes, and some quite nasty things have happened because of that; but an officer's authority doesn't extend as far into private life as a priest's, and moreover it tends to be over adults. What's more, it's not just the authority but the unchallengability. If an officer abused recruits, he might or might not be court-martialed but it would not be impossible to speak out. But in the priest-abuse scandal linked above, it was socially impossible even to make the accusation; you could not say such things about a man of God, not in Ireland at that time. People would have refused to believe you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am hardly denying that any kind of hierarchical structures are dangerous. And that the Catholic Church is a very old and very large hierarchical structure. I am just adding to the list of dangerous hierarchical structures.
And some did speak out. And their faith had a lot to do with that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And were not believed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: That would be my point if I were involved in this discussion... religion doesn't really make people behave any better than not-religion.
Religion is a tool.
I can use a hammer for its intended purpose, I can drop it on my toe, I can use it to smash someone's head in. The latter two don't stop it from being an excellent way of nailing things together. And there may be other tools that would do either the same job or a similar one.
Religion, used properly, makes people better. Many people are walking around with the spiritual equivalent of squished toes.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Religion, used properly, makes people better."
Compared to what? We need to be measuring against some standard in order to say that people are better than that standard. The thing is, taken as a whole, religious people aren't any better than non-religious people, and people of a given religion aren't any better then people of different religions within the same context.
Better than the individual would be if he abandoned all ethical systems, I'll give you. But that seems a rather trivial comparative.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Religion is a tool.
This seems inconsistent to me. Your religion, so you say, is based on revelations made by the creator of the universe to your ancestors at Mount Sinai. Its purposes, therefore, are not human purposes. Your religion may with consistency be claimed to be a tool of your god, but you cannot claim it is a tool for humans.
In fact, I do not think there is any monotheistic religion which makes the claim that it is only a tool for helping people be better. Rather they claim to be the real truth, systems for understanding the world, and in some cases definitions of what better is, as with the dreaded gay. It's a very bad analogy.
Edit: Suppose it were shown by time-travel and by exhaustive experiment that Judaism was
a) Absolutely true and b) Made people worse, in the sense of being more likely to murder, rape, and steal.
(I understand that these are against the actual laws of Judaism; it's a hypothetical, "What if professing Judaism makes you a worse Jew?") If this were the case, which part would be more important, the truthiness or the bad influence? Unless you think it is the latter, I don't think it's useful to say that religion is a tool, any more than a show is a tool because you can hammer a nail with it.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Religion, used properly, makes people better. Many people are walking around with the spiritual equivalent of squished toes.
I think this should be qualified because, as Paul pointed out, it needs a reference point. However, there is definitely some truth to the claim. There are all sorts of people who are better today because of religion.
That doesn't mean that people will act better in a world with religion than in a world without (I know this doesn't contradict your post, I just think it's a useful statement to make alongside it).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Religion is a tool.
I agree.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Somebody made the claim that people who endeavour to "be like Christ" (which within accepted boundaries nuns and priests are supposed to) "seem" to be better people than those who do not.
I linked to the news article and said, "clearly not". It wasn't religion that drove these people to abuse children, but religion didn't prevent the abuse either. It likely would have happened with or without religion.
I was the one who said that, but I did not say that people who "endeavour" to be like Christ end up being better people. Plenty of Christians endeavour to act like Christ, yet do it wrongly, and end up becoming a person almost the opposite of what Christ modeled. Inversely, I know atheists and non-Christians who have no intention of acting like Christ, yet end up doing so anyway, because that is how they were raised to act. I've found that the people who succeed in acting in a Christ-like way, even atheists who aren't doing it out of a belief in Christ, seem to live better lives than those who do not. It is not those who "endeavour" to do it that I'm talking about; it's those who actually DO do it.
Priests are supposed to be Christ-like, but that doesn't mean they always succeed. After all, even in the Bible it is often the priests who get it wrong - it was the good Samaritan, not the priest, who helped the injured man.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:And some did speak out. And their faith had a lot to do with that.
The woman who spearheaded the claims was clearly non-religious. "The Religious" she said in her interview, and it was not including her. When you're beaten and tortured by men and women of religion, you tend to abandon that kind of thing.
Even more so when, when you attempt to speak out, people accuse you of lying because they can't imagine these nuns and priests doing anything wrong.
quote: It is not those who "endeavour" to do it that I'm talking about; it's those who actually DO do it.
But this could be true of any positive role model character in any story. The fact that Jesus is a reasonably good person (although I wouldn't model myself on him, for reasons I have touched on above) simply means that he's the hero of the story. You could say that wise, kindly, protective people are like Gandalf. They may not know who Gandalf is or deliberately try to be like him, but they're like him and they're good people... and that means that the Lord of the Rings is a true story.
Many little girls want to be like Cinderella and many little boys like Spiderman (or vice versa!). Both of those characters are heroes, and they are reasonably kindly, protective, good-hearted people. If they grow up like their idols, that's great, they will likely be better and happier people. But that doesn't give Cinderella and Spiderman any more veracity than other stories with equally "good" characters.
You can't ignore the groups of people who fail at being like Christ and say, "all these people who succeed, even the atheists, prove..." No. In this argument, the people who follow the church are a set and the people who don't are a set and evil and good seems roughly equally prevalent among them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
In what argument? I was giving the reasons why I find Christianity to be a convincing religion. That's an argument between me and myself, and in that particular argument the two sets are people who actually do succeed in living the model of Christ, and the people who actually don't. Those are the two sets of people I'm making a point about.
The reason Cinderella and Spiderman are not the same is primarily that I don't think people who succeed in living their lives like Cinderella and Spiderman would actually end up living very good lives. Also, they are fictional.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:And some did speak out. And their faith had a lot to do with that.
The woman who spearheaded the claims was clearly non-religious. "The Religious" she said in her interview, and it was not including her. When you're beaten and tortured by men and women of religion, you tend to abandon that kind of thing.
Even more so when, when you attempt to speak out, people accuse you of lying because they can't imagine these nuns and priests doing anything wrong.
Teshi, google Father Thomas Doyle sometime.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest: No, I have expressed a deep conviction that this audience is hostile, biased, narrow-minded, prideful, uncharitable, rude, and not worth it.
What part of your faith has blessed you with this outlook, which is most likely unavailable to the faithless, without such a wonderful moral compass to guide us?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I've found that the people who succeed in acting in a Christ-like way, even atheists who aren't doing it out of a belief in Christ, seem to live better lives than those who do not. It is not those who "endeavour" to do it that I'm talking about; it's those who actually DO do it.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Christianity though. Actually acting like any good person makes you a better person. That isn't a particular strength of religious faith in general or Christianity specifically.
All you're really saying is, "Acting the way a really good person acts makes you a good person also."
-edited to fix messy quoting
[ May 23, 2009, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: The woman who spearheaded the claims was clearly non-religious. "The Religious" she said in her interview, and it was not including her.
The woman probably didn't mean "believers" when she said "religious". Catholics also call priests and nuns "the religious". Non-lay people, basically.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hm, that could be it. It doesn't have any bearing on whether she's herself is a theistic, though. All I can say is that there was nothing friendly in her voice when she said "the religious".
But I'd like to register my complaint against the assumption that people require Godly faith to pursue justice or to survive ordeals. Many people use faith in this manner; others have a more secular hope.
I suspect that when the source of the horror is the religious establishment, fewer people turn to religion than in more secular tragedies.
quote:That's an argument between me and myself, and in that particular argument the two sets are people who actually do succeed in living the model of Christ, and the people who actually don't. Those are the two sets of people I'm making a point about.
MightyCow actually articulated my argument far better, so take a look at what he (she?) said for further explanation of what I'm driving at.
quote: Also, they are fictional.
That has no bearing on the argument. If the only way of knowing about Jesus, real or not, is through stories, he has exactly the same amount of moral information as any fictional character. Yes, it's conveyed in a comic book or fairy tale rather than in the form of a series of moral lessons*, but I picked those two characters because they are "everypeople" semi-mythical characters.
The trouble with many more semi-historical characters like King Arthur is that inevitably, most everypeople characters get associated, either immediately or eventually with Jesus. Heck, even Doctor Who (which as far as I can tell is pretty atheist), hints in that direction (although Doctor Who would be a good, modern example otherwise). You could look into the Odyssey (Odysseus) and the Aeneid (Aeneas) as examples of semi-historical characters [of moral integrity*], at least of their time.
If I decided Aeneas was a good person and lived like him, and turned out to be a good person, it would not be evidence that the Greek Gods were real, only that Homer had some moral character himself.
*EDIT: (See below)
[ May 24, 2009, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh dear; Odysseus is a really unfortunate example to use in this context. He rapes and murders his way across most of the Eastern Med for twenty years, then when he gets home he has the gall to check up on who his wife has been sleeping with. Not to mention the mass murder of both suitors and the serving women his wife has been throwing at the suitors to keep them satisfied.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hm. I remembered the slaughtering the suitors thing, but hoped to cover that with "of their time". I don't remember "raping his way across the Med." My memories of Odysseus may be seriously flawed by the way I was taught it. I have modified to make my post more palatable.
However, really, the point of whether Odysseus is a good person in modern terms or not (clearly not) doesn't actually undermine the more major point I'm apparently struggling to convey. Tres objected that Cinderella and Spiderman were too fictional, I was trying to find some semi-historical figures who weren't related to Jesus.
KoM's point does bring up an interesting point. I have this "Odysseus is acting within the reasonably moral right of his time" idea in my head. It may be wrong... BUT this is why the idea of Jesus (real or not) was so groundbreaking and made such an impression. For all his flaws, Jesus must have seemed like a total hippie* compared to the general ideas of his time. What? No mass murder?
Because of that, I personally am inclined to believe that there was a man who fulfilled the role of Jesus, and that he was active as a religious leader around the time that he is supposed to have been. It seems likely that he was gotten rid of in some way. Most of the details I regard as mythical.
Mythicalness doesn't make the story useless, though. I would rather that people use a more modern moral character as a model, but generally if the choices are, let's say, Odysseus, Zeus and Jesus, Jesus is probably the best.
*Which is clearly why he had a Woodstock!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Take any generally good historical figure, Dr. King, Mother Theresa, President Regan, and only pay attention to the good things they did, ignoring any bad things as non-canonical, and live your life as well as you can based only on their good examples.
As long as we're deconstructing it, the basic rule is, "Live as good a life as you can, and you'll be a good person." No religion necessary. No particular role model necessary for that matter.
And it doesn't matter if you do particularly well or not, since being a Christian (Kingist, Theresian, Reganany, etc.) doesn't make you perfect, only saved (insert circular logic term of choice).
-Teshi: I'm a boy cow.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The key question you are skipping over is: how do we know who qualifies as a "really good person"? Christ? Buddha? Socrates? Oprah? Michael Jordan? Warren Buffett? I'd consider all of these to be heroic, but the "good" in each of them is very different in each case. For instance, in the case of Socrates, I'd think anyone who modeled their life extensively after Socrates is probably less likely to live a very good life. They'd be very logical, but also extremely annoying, and probably not particularly productive. I've actually known people who tried to model themselves after Jordan, hoping to become great athletes, and for the most part did not succeed.
So, no, I don't think it is true that modeling yourself after any "great" person makes you a better person. My observation is that people who act in a Christ-like way lead better lives than those whose model themselves after the wealthy, or the famous, or the uber-cool who offer up a more material definition of "good".
There are several people who'd make great models - Dr. King, Mother Theresa, as you listed - but these people all are famous for acting in a way similar to Christ. These sort of heroes are common in culture, including our fiction, because we've absorbed that sort of morality from the religions have the have dominated in the western world for centuries. Without those religions, I suspect our culture would have a very different understanding of what qualifies as a "very good person".
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Surely there were good people before Christ
edit: The point being that I don't think Christ's goodness is a particularly strong reason for believing that Christianity is true.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I... don't even know what to say to that. I want to write a lengthy explanation as to why that sounds unbelievably arrogant (let alone completely ignorant of what Socrates was about), but others have already tried and you completely missed the point.
A few quick notes on Socrates:
1. Pretty much inspired the basis of Western philosophy. 2. Went around suggesting people re-evaluate their lives, focusing on spiritual development and community rather than material gain. 3. Was executed by the powers that be. Despite the chance to flee, he willingly faced his execution.
Sound familiar? All the things that I DO find valuable in Jesus (and there's plenty of things Jesus said/did that I don't care much for) were present in Socrates 500 years earlier. And all the things that might have made Socrates seeing annoying or unproductive were certainly present in Jesus as well. (Although in both cases I do not find it annoying or unproductive.)
Edit: (Oddly enough, if it weren't for this thread I'd never have realized philosophy essentially has its own Christ Figure)
[ May 25, 2009, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: My observation is that people who act in a Christ-like way lead better lives
I think one could just as eaily say "Those who act in a Gandhi-like manner lead better lives".
But then all of a sudden this line of thinking becomes not such a great argument in favor of Jesus's divine heritage and redeeming death, am I right?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A few quick notes on Socrates:
1. Pretty much inspired the basis of Western philosophy. 2. Went around suggesting people re-evaluate their lives, focusing on spiritual development and community rather than material gain. 3. Was executed by the powers that be. Despite the chance to flee, he willingly faced his execution.
Sound familiar?
I was a philosophy major in college; I know a lot about Socrates which is why I picked him as an example. I really don't think anyone who actually acted like the way he is portrayed in Plato's dialogues would live a very good life. As much as I think re-evaluating your life is a good idea, I don't think doing it constantly is a good thing, I suspect that constantly arguing with others is frequently not going to be productive (it led Socrates to get executed), and I suspect there are much more important things in life than what Socrates (or perhaps actually Plato) argued was most important. That doesn't mean he was not a great person for what he did. In fact that's my point: that you can be a good person without it being wise for everyone to act just like you did.
quote:I think one could just as eaily say "Those who act in a Gandhi-like manner lead better lives".
But then all of a sudden this line of thinking becomes not such a great argument in favor of Jesus's divine heritage and redeeming death, am I right?
Well, no - that doesn't change the fact that the wisdom of Christ's philosophy leads me to think Christianity as a religion is more likely to be true. I never said the success of Christ's philosophy is enough of a reason by itself to conclude God exists. If Gandhi also resurrected from the dead in addition to living life the way he did, I might think differently about what his life meant too.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I really don't think anyone who actually acted like the way he is portrayed in Plato's dialogues would live a very good life.
If you read the Bible very closely and sans rose-coloured glasses, you'll discover that Jesus isn't entirely sunshine and roses, either-- even in a clearly adapted version of his life.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think all sunshine and roses is the best way to live your life either.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Edit: I don't actually know which passages Teshi and Tres were intending to reference here. What exact kinds of "non-rosy" things are we talking about?
Second Edit: On a slightly different note, I also don't think people should arbitrarily model their lives after any particular person. People are different. What worked for one person will not work for everyone. I don't think, even from a Christian standpoint, it makes sense to model yourself after Jesus, because Jesus (much like Socrates) was a teacher. Teachers are valuable to the world, but not when everyone becomes one.
[ May 25, 2009, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I did have a big post about points where I feel inclined to tell Jesus off, but I decided it was too inflammatory and too can-of-wormsish.
Raymond, I agree. We should draw insights from various people and the world in general, not try to copy one person. Because that one person, even if it's Gandhi or Jesus is inevitably going to be as flawed as anyone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)