FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Evangelical Atheists (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Evangelical Atheists
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Link.

Well argued piece. I'm quite sure that KoM & Co. will have some choice names to call him.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
There's nothing in there about evangelical atheists, but you missed the point of the article, Javert.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
To be honest, I don't think Lisa was trolling.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
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
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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)

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
First causes again?

I'm going to have to look up the last discussion we had on this; I'm not seeing the connection.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
these assumptions you rely on for your actual life are not the same ones you make for your religion.
How do you know?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Because if they were, you would reach the right conclusion, just as you do for whether your car is safe to switch on.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
[Razz]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Achilles
Member
Member # 7741

 - posted      Profile for Achilles           Edit/Delete Post 
Paging Scott R... paging Scott R. White courtesy telephone please!
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"Reason continues to guide me in the path of Mormonism."

Would you care to expound on this?

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]

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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2