posted
He addresses that in the book. He doesn't think you're equally dangerous, but rather believes that the large base of people with faith helps enable religious extremism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can hardly blame Dawkins for assuming that you have the courage of your convictions. The fact is, you believe in things for which there is no shred of evidence; that makes you irrational and possibly dangerous.
quote:Muslim and Christian beliefs have some similarities. Some could are argue that either one of the groups has been led away from the original belief sometime in the past.
In what possible way is this an answer to what I said? The point is, both groups believe as they do on nothing but faith, and their beliefs directly contradict each other!
quote:Faith in general is not given a free ride. You can't just start saying "I have faith that my god told me to kill my neighbor" and expect our laws not to prosecute you.
Not in the US or Europe, no. Because we've had three centuries of religious war to teach us not to tolerate the most extreme forms of nonsense. Try prosecuting someone in a Moslem country for killing an apostate. But in any case, in the context we were actually discussing, namely what it should be permissible to believe without getting publicly ridiculed, faith - particular kinds of it, at least - does get a free ride.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Dawkins said "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."
He then goes on to state that without any supporting evidence, blind faith is strictly wrong under the principles of methodological science. He offers treatsies which have as a central premise the evidence of the nonexistance of god.
He outright states that it's wrong to believe in things which are unprovable. God is a delusion. This is his position.
Right. I'm not sure if you're offering this as a contradiction to what I said? It doesn't seem different.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people hold to faith as a matter of a thing that cannot be proven. It's irrelevant to them. He calls this wrong.
If you believe in a thing which cannot be proven? If you believe in something despite an absence of proof? According to him, this is wrong. Not just 'a different philosophy,' it's wrong, and he wants to go out of his way to tell you how wrong you are.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Dawkins et. al. are practicing a sort of hardliner reducto skepticism, where they're going to work on a philosophical principle that if it can not be proven, then you're *objectively* wrong to hold any faith in it.
Thus bringing us full circle!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a way to take Dawkins' firm atheist stance without insulting the faithful?
To take the stance? Easily. To try and promote the stance to others? Doubtful. I don't know of any way to convince someone of a way of thinking without first pointing out how their current method is lacking. And, while this is relatively harmless when you're arguing over restaurants, it can get positively violent when religion is involved.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact is, you believe in things for which there is no shred of evidence; that makes you irrational and possibly dangerous.
Not true. I wouldn't say there isn't a shred of evidence.
I'm irrational? Possibly, when it comes to beliefs. You just don't get it do you? Of course it's not rational. You can't rationalize everything in life. Not everything can be scientifically explained with what we know and the technology we posess. You nor Dawkins can prove there isn't a God, just as I can't prove to you that there is one.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not true. I wouldn't say there isn't a shred of evidence.
You'd be wrong, but that's a separate discussion. Let's just agree that there's no evidence capable of convincing someone who doesn't already believe, shall we?
quote:You just don't get it do you? Of course it's not rational. You can't rationalize everything in life.
Actually, you can, but I suspect that what you meant was "You cannot provide rational evidence for everything in life." The point is, if you give a claim of fact without evidence, then you must expect to be ridiculed; your beliefs in god are no more to be respected than conspiracy theorists' beliefs about who shot Kennedy.
It's not just a moral point I'm making here, although I do think you have a duty not to believe what you cannot prove. If you permit faith to arbitrate what you believe, then in any dispute you have no means of convincing people except sheer brute force. Irrational beliefs, by definition, are not subject to debate. Therefore, the only way to settle an argument between believers is the old way, with fire and sword. We've seen it done; we're still seeing it, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, would you say that it is wrong to believe that the radio is talking to you? Or that you are Napoleon? Or that you cannot be harmed by bullets? Or that there's no such thing as electricity?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's just agree that there's no evidence capable of convincing someone who doesn't already believe, shall we?
This is objectively false. Millions of people are convinced by evidence each year to believe in God or to believe in a different set of doctrines concerning God. Prior to being convinced, they were not believers. Once convinced, they were.
quote:Therefore, the only way to settle an argument between believers is the old way, with fire and sword.
This is also objectively false, unless you artificially constrain the word "settle."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to second Nick's comment on the concept of lack of evidence for belief. I have encountered various phenomena in my life which cause me to have a more solid faith in God (or at least some supernatural forces). The things I've experienced/witnessed may be explained away somehow other than my proposed explanation, but I don't think either can be proven definitively, so KoM your "no shred of evidence" isn't necessarily accurate.
I wouldn't say that it's conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.
In general on this thread I have to say that I agree with most of what Tom has been saying (despite coming at it from a religious standing).
Euripedes, one of the things that bothers me about your previous post about the various evils resulting from religion is what bothers me about a lot of the Atheists' arguments about what would make the world better. If you can somewhat quantify one side of the argument, but can't quantify the other at all it means you can't use that argument as support of anything. Perhaps you can say "the presence of religion has caused X-billion deaths/wasted lives" or whatever (assuming X is a known value). but you also admit that there is Y, where Y is an unknown quantification of how much good religion has caused in the world... say X = 300, well Y might equal 0.0001 or it might equal 1000000000 or it might equal 300... basically the argument that religion has caused evil, pain and death is moot until someone can similarly quantify the good it has caused. and since there is no control group to compare against this isn't possible.
Just look at Pastwatch as a good example of this type of concept, if you change one thing that you know caused bad consequences it doesn't mean that suddenly everything is going to be rosy...
also, on Dawkins' manner and aloofness, there is a certain amount that one has to give in an argument to start with, even if you plan on going back to your original position in the end. Basically, if I'm trying to argue a point with someone I consider to be an idiot I don't go right out and say "you're an idiot and you're wrong about x" you start out softer, trying to work from where they're standing to where you're trying to get them. or say you're trying to convince someone to go sky-diving who is afraid of heights. Do you just shove them out a plane or do you start slowly, convincing them that in fact it's quite safe and fun, do some test jumps from 10 feet then 50, then 100... this doesn't mean that you're weakening your argument that their fear is unwarranted, you're just bringing the argument to them more slowly.
It all reminds me of a coworker of mine, a really smart guy who is right the vast majority of the time. however, most people don't like working with him because the manner he communicates in makes it very exhausting and frustrating. In fact even when you both agree to start with, after a conversation with him you tend to feel dumb and exhausted... Even if you're absolutely convinced of your idea, and think you have the proof to back it up there is such a thing as tact.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no such thing as electricity. All appliances are powered by Vin Diesel.
But the only thing I've really concluded about this version of athiest evangelism in practice is that it is approximately as annoying to recieve as regular strength evangelism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's just agree that there's no evidence capable of convincing someone who doesn't already believe, shall we?
This is objectively false. Millions of people are convinced by evidence each year to believe in God or to believe in a different set of doctrines concerning God. Prior to being convinced, they were not believers. Once convinced, they were.
First, I think your 'millions' exaggerated. Second, I think your 'by evidence' false. Third, the different doctrines are not relevant; I was discussing belief in the existence of a god, not whether partakers in mass are really cannibals. But in any case, I defy you to find any believer who was convinced by publicly available evidence.
quote:
quote:Therefore, the only way to settle an argument between believers is the old way, with fire and sword.
This is also objectively false, unless you artificially constrain the word "settle."
I was using it in the sense of "one party is convinced of the correctness of the other, and therefore there is no further dispute". If you wish to use a different definition, by all means do so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You're wrong. Regardless, certainly it has happened that frequently at various times in history.
quote: Second, I think your 'by evidence' false.
Actually, you believe it to be false. Wanna fight about it? Pistols at 60 paces?
quote:Third, the different doctrines are not relevant; I was discussing belief in the existence of a god, not whether partakers in mass are really cannibals. But in any case, I defy you to find any believer who was convinced by publicly available evidence.
You keep adding caveats, KoM. Make up your mind.
First it was evidence. Then evidence that would convince a non-believer. Now it's "publicly available evidence." Until it's actually defined, I'm going to call it KoMevidence for clarity.
quote:I was using it in the sense of "one party is convinced of the correctness of the other, and therefore there is no further dispute". If you wish to use a different definition, by all means do so.
Ah, then you need to demonstrate why such settlement is necessary.
Further, you don't seem to have a solution for those premises that are not subject to KoMevidence. For example, should we give food to those who don't have enough? Should we allow people to terminate their pregnancies? Should we give people temporary monopolies on things they invent? Oh, sure, we can come up with KoMevidence for things related to these questions, but we certainly can't answer them without relying on premises that are not subject to KoMproof.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you have made this criticism many times before, and I have always answered it the same way. Could you please pay attention, now? You need evidence for claims of fact. Let me repeat that: Claims of fact. Let me then give some examples. "God exists" is a claim of fact. "Jesus was divine" is a claim of fact. "The wine really turns into blood" is a claim of fact. Conversely, none of the questions you mention are questions of fact. Could you please stop asking this question now, or else tell me what you find objectionable about my answer? I've answered it at least half a dozen times.
Now let me define evidence. Evidence can be shown to anyone; it is not internal to anyone's mind. Evidence does not rely on already believing that which is to be shown. Evidence is usually repeatable. Hearsay does not qualify. As a useful shorthand, we might say that evidence is that which is admissible in a court of law, though the standards applied by archaelogists, historians, and scientists might also be good to keep in mind. You will observe that all the phrases you list me as using might refer to this concept; I have redefined nothing, but have used different ways of trying to explain what I was talking about.
quote:Actually, you believe it to be false. Wanna fight about it? Pistols at 60 paces?
Well, why don't you find me that believer convinced by evidence, as defined above, then?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I note that you didn't answer my question. IS it objectively wrong to believe that your radio is talking to you, or that you are immune to bullets? Moreover, is it arrogant to tell someone that it is wrong -- dangerous, even -- for him to believe that he is immune to bullets?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, you have made this criticism many times before, and I have always answered it the same way. Could you please pay attention, now? You need evidence for claims of fact. Let me repeat that: Claims of fact. Let me then give some examples. "God exists" is a claim of fact. "Jesus was divine" is a claim of fact. "The wine really turns into blood" is a claim of fact. Conversely, none of the questions you mention are questions of fact. Could you please stop asking this question now, or else tell me what you find objectionable about my answer? I've answered it at least half a dozen times.
Could you pay attention now? You asserted that non-evidence-supported belief is bad because arguments about such beliefs cannot be resolved short of force. You have asserted that it is this attribute that makes such beliefs bad and why they should not be held.
I pointed out a series of other beliefs - about different things - which share this attribute. Yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to hold THOSE kinds of beliefs. It is clear then, that possession of the attribute "not conducive to proof by evidence" is not sufficient to support your conclusion that such beliefs are bad. You are being inconsistent. I'm calling you on it.
Let me summarize this for you so you don't go off on another little indignant side journey that is irrelevant to the conversation:
Let A be "Claims of fact not conducive to KoMevidence."
You have asserted the following:
1. The only way to settle arguments about things which are not conducive to evidence is by violence. 2. A are not conducive to evidence. 3. Therefore, the only way to settle arguments about A is with violence. 4. Therefore, A are bad.
The only way to reach 4 is with the unstate premise that "things about which the only to settle arguments is with violence are bad."
If this entire chain of reasoning is true, then we can show:
Let B be moral premises.
a. The only way to settle arguments about things which are not conducive to evidence is by violence. b. B are not conducive to evidence. c. Therefore, the only way to settle arguments about A is with violence. d. Therefore, B are bad.
Since we know d to be false, and we know a and b to be true, then c must be false.
Therefore, the proof above dies at step 3.
quote:Now let me define evidence. Evidence can be shown to anyone; it is not internal to anyone's mind. Evidence does not rely on already believing that which is to be shown. Evidence is usually repeatable. Hearsay does not qualify. As a useful shorthand, we might say that evidence is that which is admissible in a court of law, though the standards applied by archaelogists, historians, and scientists might also be good to keep in mind. You will observe that all the phrases you list me as using might refer to this concept; I have redefined nothing, but have used different ways of trying to explain what I was talking about.
Your definition is self-contradictory. For example, hearsay is often admissible in court. More broadly, evidence that cannot be shown to anyone is admitted every single day in courtrooms throughout this country, as are statements about one's internal state of mind.
Further, your contention that evidence be "repeatable" is absolutely incompatible with evidence that is admissible in court. Testimony concerning past events is not "repeatable" unless one simply means that the eyewitness can repeat it - which I assume is not what you meant, since eyewitnesses have repeated testimony of miracles you reject time and time again.
So, if that's your definition of evidence, it's singularly useless and self-contradictory.
quote:Well, why don't you find me that believer convinced by evidence, as defined above, then?
posted
I like Richard Dawkins. He's an interesting fellow. He's got it all wrong about religion, but he's a decent scientist and has some interesting theories about "selfish" genes. I think before him, nobody really considered that individual genes could thrive despite the fact that they didn't convey advantage to their "host" organism. In that sense, they are analogous to parasites rather than symbiotes. A very important insight.
Plenty of really smart people don't believe in religion, because they've not seen the evidence we religious people have seen. That doesn't make them bad people. It can make them rather spectacularly mistaken, as in Richard Dawkins' case.
I will make once again my analogy about the magic eye posters. There are people who swear there are no pictures in magic eye posters, and that everyone who claims the pictures exist is deluded or lying. Is that irrational of them? Not at all. All the evidence they have teaches them that the pictures don't exist. What are they supposed to believe? Could some of them, if they tried harder, learn to see the pictures? Possibly. But also some may not. Does that make them evil or inferior? No.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an okay analogy, but of course I need to point out that someone skeptical about Magic Eye posters need only ask a hundred people who claim to be able to see them what the images are -- or, being too skeptical even for that, to run (in reverse) the offset program that people claim created the image from the background in order to display the original image. Nothing nearly so reliable works for religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB] Samp, I note that you didn't answer my question. IS it objectively wrong to believe that your radio is talking to you, or that you are immune to bullets?
Things like "I am immune to bullets" are empirically disprovable, so that makes them a far different issue than a philosophy ('can you PROVE that happiness is the most desireable moral goal?') or a religion ('can you PROVE that the Mormon God exists?'). I'd consider it pretty wrong. Now, if you were to ask me if it is wrong to hold faith in an idea that cannot be proven, I'd tell you 'probably not.' I don't have moral scruples with an idea held on faith for virtue of the fact that you can't test it to be true.
quote:Moreover, is it arrogant to tell someone that it is wrong -- dangerous, even -- for him to believe that he is immune to bullets?
Not inherently, no! You could certainly do it in an arrogant fashion, though!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your logic is convincing. I'll point out, however, that people actually have fought wars over religious issues; none have been fought over abortion.
quote:Your definition is self-contradictory. For example, hearsay is often admissible in court. More broadly, evidence that cannot be shown to anyone is admitted every single day in courtrooms throughout this country, as are statements about one's internal state of mind.
I did not say that statements about a state of mind were not evidence. I said that the state itself was not evidence. To clarify the distinction, if I say "I am annoyed", that is evidence about my state of mind, which you may trust or not as you choose. Even if you believe that I am annoyed, however, that is not evidence of the existence of little annoyance-gremlins influencing my mental state.
Touching the evidence that cannot be shown to anyone, what are you thinking of? If it's being shown in court, then by definition it's being shown to quite randomly selected lawyers and jury members. How do they not qualify as 'anyone'?
quote:Further, your contention that evidence be "repeatable" is absolutely incompatible with evidence that is admissible in court. Testimony concerning past events is not "repeatable" unless one simply means that the eyewitness can repeat it - which I assume is not what you meant, since eyewitnesses have repeated testimony of miracles you reject time and time again.
You will please note that I qualified repeatable with 'usually', for precisely this reason. Eyewitness testimony of miracles, however, dies on the second part of my requirements; to wit, nobody believes in any miracles of religions other than those he already belongs to.
quote:Lisa, for one.
So she claims; if you press her, however, you'll find that her 'evidence' boils down to her father telling her, and her believing him.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Things like "I am immune to bullets" are empirically disprovable, so that makes them a far different issue than a philosophy ('can you PROVE that happiness is the most desireable moral goal?') or a religion ('can you PROVE that the Mormon God exists?')
Are you absolutely sure you want to draw the distinction here? I ask because it amounts to teetering on the edge of a very, very huge and tricksy chasm.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's where the distinction has been drawn, regardless. What I tell you is very descriptive: I really don't care if someone believes in God; I don't find fault with the practice for virtue of the fact that they ain't gonna be able to prove God to me. Or that they don't care whether or not their God is emperically provable. I'm just like, hey, whatever.
Maybe I care for other reasons, like how their belief leads to them blowing up abortion clinics or hatin' on the gays or sending all their money to L. Ron Hubbard and I could find any one of these policies to be individually disagreeable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So believing in things which are not empirically provable is, by your argument, universally harmless?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the difference shows the weakness of my analogy. A poster isn't a personality like God is. So it can't show different aspects of itself to different people. And it can't be deliberately trying not to intrude its pictures into the minds of people who would rather not know they're there, or whatever. But the same idea holds true. People who have no observations to support the existence of a deity find the concept rather bizarre. Nobody can blame them for so thinking.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Euripides, for someone who did not want to get into that discussion, you certainly dove right into that discussion.
Only to show how messy it was. Then I returned right back to why that discussion can be avoided. I think truth is more important.
quote:For myself, I would rather know the truth. But I'm not sure I would voluntarily choose that for everyone, if it would make their lives worse. I am not sure if that would be considered a virtue.
If that's your position, then we do have to return to the above 'messy discussion'. I for one consider spreading major falsehoods to be immoral.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Dawkins et. al. are practicing a sort of hardliner reducto skepticism, where they're going to work on a philosophical principle that if it can not be proven, then you're *objectively* wrong to hold any faith in it.
I think Tom has addressed this in his responses, but I want to explicitly say that god or no god is a question of probability. The fact that there is no evidence for god's existence makes it very highly improbable.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: He seemed interesting and moderate about religion until 9/11. He then seemed to suddenly decide that religion is the "Root of all Evil" and it seems his understanding of Christianity is not adequate to make such a claim.
To be fair that's a sensationalist title that was forced on him, and he explicitly says so. Nothing is the root of all evil. Religion is the root of a lot of evil.
quote:I disagree with him of course, but I am just noting that where once he was content to let education slowly stifle the ill effects of religion, now he seems to believe that the only way to stop religion is to crush it. Much like how extremist Marxists think the only way to stop the evils of capitalism is to crush it.
We're convinced the faithful are wrong, and try to show them why through reasoned argument. That doesn't land us in the same category as Marxist guerilla fighters. It would land us in the same category as Marxists who write essays and talk about the harm capitalism is doing, but the shared trait there is the fact that our views aren't accepted by the establishment, that's all.
quote:But I agree, Dawkins has not suggested fighting fire with fire as a means to combat religious extremism.
Thanks for saying so.
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Yet this man writes with the assumption that all religious people are as equally deluded or crazy as the religious extremists.
Nick, have you actually read a word Dawkins has written?
quote:You nor Dawkins can prove there isn't a God, just as I can't prove to you that there is one.
Right. That doesn't mean that your hypothesis and my hypothesis are equally as probable. There is no evidence in your favour (though you've challenged that statement, and I'd welcome any evidence you could bring to the table).
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Euripedes, one of the things that bothers me about your previous post about the various evils resulting from religion is what bothers me about a lot of the Atheists' arguments about what would make the world better. If you can somewhat quantify one side of the argument, but can't quantify the other at all it means you can't use that argument as support of anything. Perhaps you can say "the presence of religion has caused X-billion deaths/wasted lives" or whatever (assuming X is a known value). but you also admit that there is Y, where Y is an unknown quantification of how much good religion has caused in the world... say X = 300, well Y might equal 0.0001 or it might equal 1000000000 or it might equal 300... basically the argument that religion has caused evil, pain and death is moot until someone can similarly quantify the good it has caused. and since there is no control group to compare against this isn't possible.
I didn't say that only the bad could be quantified. I don't think that the net effect of religion can be quantified accurately, because so much of it depends on how it motivated people to take certain actions. I do think a rough estimate is possible though, especially if you take the example of recent history rather than all of human history, and I think you'd find that the net effect is negative.
Let me ask this: Do you think that in the absence of religion, people will act immorally? Is god (and the rewards and punishments he doles out) the only reason you behave morally? I don't think so. And if you want counterexamples for the first question, there are plenty of atheists who have a system of morality they live by and are defensible by reason. If you are a Christian who doesn't accept the moral imperatives in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, chances are you've already whittled Christian doctrine down to some moral precepts you find acceptable. And again, chances are, those moral precepts will have a lot in common with those of humanists.
quote:Just look at Pastwatch as a good example of this type of concept, if you change one thing that you know caused bad consequences it doesn't mean that suddenly everything is going to be rosy...
In all seriousness, do really want to use this analogy?
If that's your position, then we do have to return to the above 'messy discussion'. I for one consider spreading major falsehoods to be immoral.
I consider spreading (deliberate) falsehoods to be immoral as well. I add that qualifier because to me, most of morality lies in intent. As for 'more important'...more important than what?
How important is abstract truth, to you? How many people's lives are you willing to end, how much happiness are you willing to destroy, how much desperation and loneliness are you willing to inflict, in pursuit of truth-for other people?
Granted, you clearly believe the world would be better without religion. I think that's a dubious claim at best, not very well supported at all by wars fought supposedly on behalf of religion, for which there were always at least one other major reason. But you've brought up an abstract, and so that's why I'm asking a question about the unknowable, too.
What if religion did have a net good impact on humanity, in terms of increasing happiness, standards of living, and decreasing suffering? What if it was a big net impact for the better-but that impact was based on a lie? Would you then, if you could, take away religion from the world because it was based on a lie, in spite of the good the 'lie' brings? That's what I'm asking.
I think it's an important question to ask someone committed to bringing 'truth' to the world, because issues about this particular search for truth have a big impact on humanity. It seems irresponsible not to define boundaries before one begins.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for 'more important'...more important than what?
More important than any positive impacts that can be ascribed to religion.
quote:How important is abstract truth, to you? How many people's lives are you willing to end, how much happiness are you willing to destroy, how much desperation and loneliness are you willing to inflict, in pursuit of truth-for other people?
What's "abstract truth"? Is there a difference between it and specific truths? I think the nature of the cosmos and our system of morality has profound effects on our lives, so it's not really 'abstract' to me.
I do think the question is moot because the net impact is negative, and being an atheist doesn't make you desperate and lonely (though being excluded from your community because of it might) etc.
But to address your question; let's say we were living in a computer program a la Matrix, and I was unplugged. For whatever reason, revealing the truth to others in the Matrix would kill them. In that case I wouldn't tell anyone the truth.
The decision depends very much on the circumstances, and the circumstances of reality today are such that spreading the truth about the nature of reality is not only moral in that it's honest, but alleviates the cognitive dissonance resulting from religion.
I could just as easily turn this argument on you too, or any believer.
quote:Granted, you clearly believe the world would be better without religion. I think that's a dubious claim at best, not very well supported at all by wars fought supposedly on behalf of religion, for which there were always at least one other major reason.
The only argument you've made here is that there were reasons other than religion for most wars. I would agree. But religion is so often a convenient and successful justification which works where the bare secular motives would not, and definitely has been the cause of much violence and bloodshed in a more direct sense. Just open your bible, if you accept that book as historical evidence.
Would you disagree that one less irrational belief that could be used to justify war would be a good thing?
Also consider how readily religion corrupts reason. Many intelligent theists compartmentalise what they apply reason to and what they don't; what they think about and what they won't think about. Those boundaries between what is thought about and what isn't can be stretched and modified, and evidence based enquiry bumps up against faith to cause unresolved paradoxes in one's mind. This is what I'm alluding to when I mention cognitive dissonance.
quote:I think it's an important question to ask someone committed to bringing 'truth' to the world, because issues about this particular search for truth have a big impact on humanity. It seems irresponsible not to define boundaries before one begins.
That's fine. I've thought about it, and obviously if I was in a room with a Christian and was told that he would be shot if I 'deconverted' him, I wouldn't start talking to him about evolution; the circumstances matter. I've thought about our current context, and I think that the morality of honesty and the good that atheism will do far outweighs the discomfort of disillusionment.
I think theists should think hard about the moral implications of their beliefs too.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So believing in things which are not empirically provable is, by your argument, universally harmless?
Boy, I'd sure like to see what part of my argument makes it out to be universally harmless. Because I don't see that aaaaatt allllllllll.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not wanting to clutter what you've got going here, I made another thread detailing how I feel about the whole mess.
It's the only thread I'm likely to start for awhile (don't usually feel the need since there's already so much interesting stuff going on) and it's named after one of those commandments that got chopped off because ten was a much more attractive and easy to remember number than.... anything larger.
And if you're really interested in this topic, consider reading Cat's Cradle, because Kurt Vonnegut has some interesting (and beautiful) things to say on the subject of religion and truth in our lives.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Boy, I'd sure like to see what part of my argument makes it out to be universally harmless. Because I don't see that aaaaatt allllllllll.
Well, you're claiming that harm only comes in the results of belief, the actions we take according to those beliefs, and that any belief in something which isn't empirically provable is categorically different from a belief in something which is. (Note: I was actually surprised by this, because once you're asserting that actions and not beliefs are harmful, you don't really need to make a distinction between types of belief.)
Are there situations in which a belief in something empirically unprovable can be harmful in and of itself?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Touching the evidence that cannot be shown to anyone, what are you thinking of? If it's being shown in court, then by definition it's being shown to quite randomly selected lawyers and jury members. How do they not qualify as 'anyone'?
No, it's being TOLD to someone else.
quote:You will please note that I qualified repeatable with 'usually', for precisely this reason. Eyewitness testimony of miracles, however, dies on the second part of my requirements; to wit, nobody believes in any miracles of religions other than those he already belongs to.
And yet we have counterexamples galore. Or do you believe no one is ever converted to believing in God?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or do you believe no one is ever converted to believing in God?
I believe that only a vanishingly small minority of people who convert from one religion to another do so without first deciding that they prefer the trappings of the new religion. Any belief in the second religion's miracles seems to come later.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's "abstract truth"? Is there a difference between it and specific truths? I think the nature of the cosmos and our system of morality has profound effects on our lives, so it's not really 'abstract' to me.
I don't really understand why you think that 'abstract' precludes serious importance in human lives. People fight and die for the abstract all the time.
quote:I do think the question is moot because the net impact is negative, and being an atheist doesn't make you desperate and lonely (though being excluded from your community because of it might) etc.
Yes, well, just to make sure: I did not say that being an atheist automatically makes one desperate or lonely.
quote:The decision depends very much on the circumstances, and the circumstances of reality today are such that spreading the truth about the nature of reality is not only moral in that it's honest, but alleviates the cognitive dissonance resulting from religion.
Well, OK. You're not a fanatic about it. That's really what I was asking-some people are. Incidentally, you don't have "the truth about reality", you only have what you are convinced is not the truth about reality, that is religion. Religion answers questions about the "truth about reality" that science does not, and yes by 'answers' I acknowledge it does not use scientific or strictly rational methods to do so.
quote:The only argument you've made here is that there were reasons other than religion for most wars. I would agree. But religion is so often a convenient and successful justification which works where the bare secular motives would not, and definitely has been the cause of much violence and bloodshed in a more direct sense. Just open your bible, if you accept that book as historical evidence.
You're assuming that the "bare secular motives" would not work out. That's a pretty serious assumption, don't you think? Or let's say that I agree, and that wars which have been fought on behalf of religion but which actually had a host of other, materialistic causes, lacked religion as a justification. Why do you think no other justification would be found? People are pretty creative.
quote:Would you disagree that one less irrational belief that could be used to justify war would be a good thing?
Certainly I would.
quote:Also consider how readily religion corrupts reason. Many intelligent theists compartmentalise what they apply reason to and what they don't; what they think about and what they won't think about. Those boundaries between what is thought about and what isn't can be stretched and modified, and evidence based enquiry bumps up against faith to cause unresolved paradoxes in one's mind. This is what I'm alluding to when I mention cognitive dissonance.
Religious people often think a great deal about the "things they don't think about". Just because they do not apply cold reason to their beliefs does not mean they aren't thinking about it, it just means you have little to no respect for those ways of thinking about it. And you're welcome to that opinion, I just want to make sure we're clear about it.
Some of the most meaningful philosophers and scientists in human history have been religious and somehow overcame this corrosive dissonance you speak of. I'm not very concerned about it.
quote:I've thought about our current context, and I think that the morality of honesty and the good that atheism will do far outweighs the discomfort of disillusionment.
Why on Earth do you think atheism will do good? You have no real evidence for it being a beneficial element on a large, whole-society scale. In fact, the only examples of large, whole society atheism we've got are unpleasant at best.
The only evidence you've got for it being a good thing is hindsight focusing on the flaws with religion.
quote:I think theists should think hard about the moral implications of their beliefs too.
I agree. Most theists are instructed by their beliefs to do so regularly, in written word, in discussion, and in thought-well, that kind of thought you don't respect, the not-strictly-rational kind, but thought nonetheless.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or do you believe no one is ever converted to believing in God?
I believe that only a vanishingly small minority of people who convert from one religion to another do so without first deciding that they prefer the trappings of the new religion. Any belief in the second religion's miracles seems to come later.
I don't understand how you define "trappings" and "miracles." Are you saying they enjoy the social and perhaps other aesthetic things within the religion that are attractive and THEN buy into the miraculous aspects of it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
So she claims; if you press her, however, you'll find that her 'evidence' boils down to her father telling her, and her believing him.
I can see why it'd be important to you to believe that. But it's not true. Actually, I grew up in a non-religious home. When it comes to morals, what my father taught me was "You can do anything you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone."
I went to an Orthodox high school for 3 years, but I transferred there mostly to get out of having to take public speaking at the public school I was going to. That wasn't what I told my parents, of course.
When I was in 3rd grade, I started going to afternoon Hebrew school. That's two hours each on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school, and two hours more on Sunday morning. It wasn't a very religious Hebrew school. Half of it was just learning Hebrew (which I sucked at), and the rest was doing arts and crafts projects for whatever holiday was around the corner.
I used to act up, both because I was bored and because I was bad at reading Hebrew, and over a few times of being kicked out of class, I read the Torah from cover to cover. It was okay, I guess.
When I was in 4th grade, I remember going into the laundry room and asking my Mom some questions. "Mom, do you believe in God?" She obviously thought it was an inane question, and asked, "Why?" "Do you?" I insisted. So she shrugged and said, "Sure, I guess." Very convincing. So I asked her the question that was on my mind. "So if God can, like, wipe us out with a lightning bolt, or something, and God told us we should keep kosher, how can we not keep kosher?" Fourth grade reasoning. And it wasn't like I wanted to keep kosher, or anything. I just saw what seemed like a contradiction. I would have been fine with, "We don't really believe in God", because that would have fit with us not keeping kosher.
Anyway, she just got frustrated and told me to go watch TV or read a book or something. She never did answer my question.
The summer before I started college, I was a counselor up at a summer camp, and we were reading the book The Chosen to our campers. I went out and read everything else Chaim Potok had written, including Wanderings, which was a Jewish history. I'd hated Jewish history in high school, but he made it entertaining. So when I got to college, I signed up for a class called "Jewish History from Antiquity", taught by a smarmy pain (actually, you remind me of him, O King) named Joe Rosenbloom. He was so cocksure of his anti-religious agenda that he managed to offend me, even though I wasn't religious at all. And despite being horribly shy, I started arguing with him in front of the class.
I also started spending a lot of time at the libraries reading up on the subject, because if he was actually right, I didn't want to make an idiot of myself. Turned out, not only was he wrong, but so was I. What I hadn't known filled volumes. Literally.
You don't have to believe that I came to my views on Judaism and God rationally and logically, but that's pure, irrational, gut-level belief on your part. You don't know me, and yet you're willing to make categorical statements like the one you made. I wonder how you square that sort of thing with your supposed commitment to drawing conclusions solely from evidence. I'm sure you must have some rationalization or other for it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying they enjoy the social and perhaps other aesthetic things within the religion that are attractive and THEN buy into the miraculous aspects of it?
Yes. Although I include philosophical concepts and the like, as well as the personalities of the members, the frequency of church events, etc. Very few people are converted by either unprompted, unsolicited flashes of divine inspiration and/or discussions of dogma.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I am convinced that not a single person I saw convert on my mission through my efforts converted in that manner. In fact often it was the trappings of the religion that became an obstacle to people converting, as Mormonism is SO very different from Taoism/Buddhism/ combinations of that two. Chinese culture has for centuries fused with those religions and separations of the religion and the culture are practically impossible.
I often had to rely on the actual experience with God to help the people come to terms with the differences in sociality/ideas/etc.
But as a side note I do agree that many people join even the Mormon church because at first they like the trappings and subsequently either accurately or otherwise become convinced of the miracles. I am just saying its not that way empirically. My own experiences being a counterexample.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's "abstract truth"? Is there a difference between it and specific truths? I think the nature of the cosmos and our system of morality has profound effects on our lives, so it's not really 'abstract' to me.
I don't really understand why you think that 'abstract' precludes serious importance in human lives. People fight and die for the abstract all the time.
I don't think that. To clear up any misunderstanding, the word 'abstract' entering the conversation came across as a conditional statement.
quote:Incidentally, you don't have "the truth about reality", you only have what you are convinced is not the truth about reality, that is religion. Religion answers questions about the "truth about reality" that science does not, and yes by 'answers' I acknowledge it does not use scientific or strictly rational methods to do so.
Science can't account for the existence of the universe, no. But there are a lot of established hypotheses with plenty of evidence going for them that are precluded by religion; many truths that conflict with religious belief.
quote:You're assuming that the "bare secular motives" would not work out. That's a pretty serious assumption, don't you think? Or let's say that I agree, and that wars which have been fought on behalf of religion but which actually had a host of other, materialistic causes, lacked religion as a justification. Why do you think no other justification would be found? People are pretty creative.
So do you think that in the absence of religion, all the violence we've seen in history would have happened anyway?
quote:
quote:Would you disagree that one less irrational belief that could be used to justify war would be a good thing?
Certainly I would.
I'm assuming you read 'agree' rather than 'disagree' as I had typed.
quote:Religious people often think a great deal about the "things they don't think about". Just because they do not apply cold reason to their beliefs does not mean they aren't thinking about it, it just means you have little to no respect for those ways of thinking about it. And you're welcome to that opinion, I just want to make sure we're clear about it.
Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
quote:Some of the most meaningful philosophers and scientists in human history have been religious and somehow overcame this corrosive dissonance you speak of. I'm not very concerned about it.
It can be overcome; by not worrying about resolving the paradox, or convincing oneself of the truth of religion using some trick of logic. That doesn't make you unintelligent.
You might be surprised though, how common atheists are among the intellectual elite. I don't advance this as an argument against religion; I point it out because the fact that many scholars and scientists have resolved this paradox in their minds is overshadowed by the fact that many are pressured by society to concede some form of belief. Then there are deists, or those like Einstein, how believe in god as a metaphor for Nature (so, de facto atheism).
quote:Why on Earth do you think atheism will do good? You have no real evidence for it being a beneficial element on a large, whole-society scale. In fact, the only examples of large, whole society atheism we've got are unpleasant at best.
Religion is doing harm. Atheism is defined by its opposition to theism; that alone will only help expose the truth (one again, a virtue according to my morality). Humanist moral philosophy will then do further good.
Atheists usually don't advocate just abandoning religion. I'll say it again; there is morality beyond religion.
As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
If I may I'd like to pose to you the question I posed to TheGrimace:
quote:Let me ask this: Do you think that in the absence of religion, people will act immorally? Is god (and the rewards and punishments he doles out) the only reason you behave morally? I don't think so. And if you want counterexamples for the first question, there are plenty of atheists who have a system of morality they live by and are defensible by reason. If you are a Christian who doesn't accept the moral imperatives in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, chances are you've already whittled Christian doctrine down to some moral precepts you find acceptable. And again, chances are, those moral precepts will have a lot in common with those of humanists.
quote:The only evidence you've got for it being a good thing is hindsight focusing on the flaws with religion.
Atheism is not a moral philosophy. It's a commitment to reason which denies the validity of religion.
If you want to argue that abandoning religion will result in evil, you'll have to take into consideration the humanist moral precepts most atheists hold dear. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia conspicuously lacked such a moral philosophy.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Atheism is not a moral philosophy. It's a commitment to reason which denies the validity of religion.
It can be. But I think it rarely is.
Though I'd point out that "a commitment to reason" is itself a moral philosophy. Atheism, for those very few who espouse it for the reasons you do, derives from a moral philosophy, but is not, itself a moral philosophy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't have to believe that I came to my views on Judaism and God rationally and logically, but that's pure, irrational, gut-level belief on your part. You don't know me, and yet you're willing to make categorical statements like the one you made. I wonder how you square that sort of thing with your supposed commitment to drawing conclusions solely from evidence. I'm sure you must have some rationalization or other for it.
You just wrote a whole huge post saying that you came to your beliefs because you read stuff and believed it. If the evidence was so convincing, why don't you list some of it, instead of giving your life story?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't have to believe that I came to my views on Judaism and God rationally and logically, but that's pure, irrational, gut-level belief on your part. You don't know me, and yet you're willing to make categorical statements like the one you made. I wonder how you square that sort of thing with your supposed commitment to drawing conclusions solely from evidence. I'm sure you must have some rationalization or other for it.
You just wrote a whole huge post saying that you came to your beliefs because you read stuff and believed it. If the evidence was so convincing, why don't you list some of it, instead of giving your life story?
How about you addressing the issue of how you reached a solid conclusion with zero evidence first? I've given some of my reasons in the past, and frankly, I don't think you have the attention span for a fuller explanation (though if I'm wrong, my e-mail address is in my profile). But you put on a big show of being Mr. Logical-and-Rational, and I think it's really nothing but a show. And I think you've made that abundantly clear in this case. So since we have you on the stage, O King, honor us with an explanation, wouldja?
PS: I didn't say that I read it and believed it. I said I read a lot, studied a lot, and became convinced. "Belief" is a-rational. Like your belief that no one can accept God rationally, for instance.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science can't account for the existence of the universe, no. But there are a lot of established hypotheses with plenty of evidence going for them that are precluded by religion; many truths that conflict with religious belief.
I agree with this, except with the implication that "religious belief" as a whole is in conflict with established hypotheses. There is no monolithic "religious belief".
quote:So do you think that in the absence of religion, all the violence we've seen in history would have happened anyway?
Not exactly the same violence, of course not. Different violence, certainly. Humanity has never needed religion to endorse violence-it just helps, sometimes. But religions does not help solely incite some people to violence. It influences other things, too.
[quoteI'm assuming you read 'agree' rather than 'disagree' as I had typed.[/quote]
Whoops! I sure did, my mistake.
quote:Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
This is a belief you have, Euripedes. That reasoned thought alone is the exclusive method of determining the nature of reality. For some aspects of reality, I share your belief. For others, I do not.
quote:It can be overcome; by not worrying about resolving the paradox, or convincing oneself of the truth of religion using some trick of logic. That doesn't make you unintelligent.
Well, alright. I'll accept your more charitable phrasing that is actually quite different than what some atheists say on a regular basis about religious people. Please note that when you speak again about "religious thinking".
quote:You might be surprised though, how common atheists are among the intellectual elite. I don't advance this as an argument against religion; I point it out because the fact that many scholars and scientists have resolved this paradox in their minds is overshadowed by the fact that many are pressured by society to concede some form of belief. Then there are deists, or those like Einstein, how believe in god as a metaphor for Nature (so, de facto atheism).
It seems to me that when you're confronted with a scientist who was pressured by society to concede some form of belief, that barring other evidence besides this vague pressure, the reasonable thing to do is to say, "I don't know if he believed or not," if he says he does, rather than conclude he did not and was merely pressured by society to do so.
quote:Religion is doing harm. Atheism is defined by its opposition to theism; that alone will only help expose the truth (one again, a virtue according to my morality). Humanist moral philosophy will then do further good.
Yes, religion is doing harm. So is democracy, capitalism, communism, charity, altruism, atheism, and pretty much any other -ism or -acy I could name. "Religion is doing harm" is a meaningless statement as far as persuading people is concerned, unless you examine the good religion does and try to get the tally.
Or do you think religion does no good?
quote:As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
How can you possibly ask me that question seriously, Euripedes? In our entire discussion, you've been deliberately focusing exclusively on the bad religion does. And I'm supposed to take a wider view of atheists why, exactly?
quote:If you want to argue that abandoning religion will result in evil, you'll have to take into consideration the humanist moral precepts most atheists hold dear. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia conspicuously lacked such a moral philosophy.
I don't want to argue that. I was quite clear, I think, when I asked about what you would do earlier, I was asking because I wanted to know how far you valued sharing/exposing the truth. Not because I actually believe that humanity cannot possibly be happy without religion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about you addressing the issue of how you reached a solid conclusion with zero evidence first?
As a matter of fact, I do have evidence. To wit, if any religious sect had any good solid evidence that would convince neutral observers, they'd trumpet it to the skies and neutral observers would be convinced. No such thing has happened. Therefore, no such evidence exists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nobody can blame them for so thinking.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
