quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And, by the way, you keep saying "It's possible he was telling the truth", as though this were some sort of novel insight that we weren't admitting. Yes, yes, it's possible, but then again it's also possible that Ron L Hubbard believed in the whole panoply of Scientology that he invented. The possibility that somebody believed what they were saying is not a strong standard.
Yes but when you say it, it's with the contempt of somebody saying, "Sure it could be true, and it's true that one day pigs will fly."
Which is exactly your attitude to Scientology, so what's your pork? Once again, "X could be true" is just not very enlightening. It provides almost zero distinguishing power. About the only things which absolutely cannot be true are actual contradictions, such as "A is red and A is also not red". A test which only eliminates this sort of thing is about as useful as wings on a pig.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how Joseph Smith being selected as God's prophet on earth to restore His One True Church is more plausible than the idea that a relatively small group of people perpetuated an unusually successful act of hucksterism.
In all seriousness, this is actually how hucksters profit: because once people become emotionally invested in the con, they would prefer to believe almost anything else to avoid being wrong about it. The perceived likelihood of anything which contradicts our own worldviews is artificially low.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The perceived likelihood of anything which contradicts our own worldviews is artificially low."
Yeah, and if I weren't who I am, I might still be a Young-Earth Creationist. Because, I was raised to be one.
I admit that it's probably a lot easier to stay a believing Mormon (and still be intelligent and fairly well-educated) as an adult than a Young-Earth Creationist.
I have no idea what it would be like to have been raised Mormon, or any other non-YEC religion. I am what I am. Nothing else. I don't know what that means, exactly.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there is a more correct and plausible explanation to Joseph Smith's life.
I don't see how Joseph Smith being selected as God's prophet on earth to restore His One True Church is more plausible than the idea that a relatively small group of people perpetuated an unusually successful act of hucksterism.
And that's fine. But we are not looking at the exact same data sets.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that's fine. But we are not looking at the exact same data sets.
No doubt. You are already a Mormon. That Joseph Smith was God's prophet is an article of faith for you. I'm just pointing out that, to a non-invested outside observer, it's not a very plausible story compared to the rather mundane alternatives.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
edit: also, i don't think religious people *themselves* are being misleading, i just think the term itself, in that context, is. That word has certain connotations, and stretching it to include "the natural order of things" is not a commonly accepted one.
Actually, the idea that everything might be God goes back a long way. Cicero argued against it on the grounds that the universe is spinning and so if God is the universe God would be constantly vomiting.
Why no one ever worked that into a creation myth I'm not sure.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Did you stray from the topic? I thought this was a thread about Joseph Smith.
Heh.
Although, I would point out that this thread is a good example of why there would have been very little point to Dawkins going into more theological detail about specific religions Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Leonide: Makes me even more interested in taking my Anthropology of Religion course this Fall!
quote:American Heritage Dictionary: an·thro·pol·o·gy The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans. That part of Christian theology concerning the genesis, nature, and future of humans, especially as contrasted with the nature of God
Mucus: Considering the defination, Leonide could use this thread for the source of >>>HER<<< term paper this Fall: "Anthropology of Religion: Genesis, Nature, and the Future of Humans, Especially as Contrasted with the Nature of Hatrack"
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In all seriousness, this is actually how hucksters profit: because once people become emotionally invested in the con, they would prefer to believe almost anything else to avoid being wrong about it. The perceived likelihood of anything which contradicts our own worldviews is artificially low.
This is that whole cognitive dissonance thing that I've talked about way too often. The mechanism is absurdly powerful in the human mind.
The most potent examples of how fast and how completely it can go to work on a person of faith is to look at sects which had predicted an exact date of a very serious foretold happening. I like this:
quote:Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in the book, When Prophecy Fails (Festinger et al. 1956). Festinger and his associates read an interesting item in their local newspaper headlined "Prophecy from planet clarion call to city: flee that flood." A Chicago housewife, Mrs. Marion Keech, had mysteriously been given messages in her house in the form of "automatic writing" from alien beings on the planet Clarion, who revealed that the world would end in a great flood before dawn on December 21. The group of believers, headed by Mrs. Keech, had taken strong behavioral steps to indicate their degree of commitment to the belief. They had left jobs, college, and spouses, and had given away money and possessions to prepare for their departure on the flying saucer, which was to rescue the group of true believers.
Festinger and his colleagues saw this as a case that would lead to the arousal of dissonance when the prophecy failed. Altering the belief would be difficult, as Mrs. Keech and her group were committed at considerable expense to maintain it. Another option would be to enlist social support for their belief. As Festinger wrote, "If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct." In this case, if Mrs. Keech could add consonant elements by converting others to the basic premise, then the magnitude of her dissonance following disconfirmation would be reduced. Festinger et al. predicted that the inevitable disconfirmation would be followed by an enthusiastic effort at proselytizing to seek social support and lessen the pain of disconfirmation.
Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated Mrs. Keech's group and reported the following sequence of events:[1]
* Prior to December 20. The group shuns publicity. Interviews are given only grudgingly. Access to Mrs. Keech's house is only provided to those who can convince the group that they are true believers. The group evolves a belief system—provided by the automatic writing from the planet Clarion—to explain the details of the cataclysm, the reason for its occurrence, and the manner in which the group would be saved from the disaster.
* December 20. The group expects a visitor from outer space to call upon them at midnight and to escort them to a waiting spacecraft. As instructed, the group goes to great lengths to remove all metallic items from their persons. As midnight approaches, zippers, bra straps, and other objects are discarded. The group waits.
* 12:05 A.M., December 21. No visitor. Someone in the group notices that another clock in the room shows 11:55. The group agrees that it is not yet midnight.
* 12:10 A.M. The second clock strikes midnight. Still no visitor. The group sits in stunned silence. The cataclysm itself is no more than seven hours away.
* 4:00 A.M. The group has been sitting in stunned silence. A few attempts at finding explanations have failed. Mrs. Keech begins to cry.
* 4:45 A.M. Another message by automatic writing is sent to Mrs. Keech. It states, in effect, that the God of Earth has decided to spare the planet from destruction. The cataclysm has been called off: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction."
* Afternoon, December 21. Newspapers are called; interviews are sought. In a reversal of its previous distaste for publicity, the group begins an urgent campaign to spread its message to as broad an audience as possible.
posted
Ok, catch-up time. So Leonide = Krankykat, or Lenoide is Krankykat's significant other? And Kira is Krankykat?
Second, I can agree with what Krankykat said about the term paper, I just don't see why it was addressed to me?
TomDavidson, Samprimary: I agree, although I'll just add that the idea is really just a special case of the concept reflected the in the paraphrased old adage "don't throw in good money after bad", it does not have to be a con or religion. You hear that phrase a lot in investing for example.
quote:And that's fine. But we are not looking at the exact same data sets.
No doubt. You are already a Mormon. That Joseph Smith was God's prophet is an article of faith for you. I'm just pointing out that, to a non-invested outside observer, it's not a very plausible story compared to the rather mundane alternatives.
I can certainly see this.
edit: It would be nice though if somehow the opposition realized something along the lines of, you don't have to be duped in order to believe this stuff. To me, though the physical evidence is secondary to the divine, I still find that it's quite rational to believe there sound reasons to believe Joseph Smith, if one looks deeply enough. The conclusion to believe in him might be just as rational as the conclusion that the world exists.
quote:It would be nice though if somehow the opposition realized something along the lines of, you don't have to be duped in order to believe this stuff.
Um. Definitionally, if you believe this stuff and it was an intentional con, you have been duped.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be nice though if somehow the opposition realized something along the lines of, you don't have to be duped in order to believe this stuff.
Um. Definitionally, if you believe this stuff and it was an intentional con, you have been duped.
OK but you keep posing that possibility as the only conclusion that could be reasonably drawn from this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. It's the only conclusion we have, in fact, drawn. I'm sorry, but we are not required to keep an open mind for infinite periods; there comes a point when you have to say "No, this is not a reasonable theory and I will spend no more effort keeping my mind open on the subject." Just as you have done with Scientology, a point I have made several times and you have signally failed to address.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, it isn't the only conclusion. It is also possible that it was an unintentional con and that Joseph Smith really believed what he preached.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you winged monkeys are no longer having fun with the Joseph Smith strawman* I would love to discuss what evangelical atheists hope to gain by lumping all (or almost all) theists together.
If their concern is the erosion of civil rights by the religious extremists wouldn't it make more sense to get those theists (and there are a lot of us) who agree with them to work with them rather than lumping us all together and calling us idiots? There is common ground and a common cause. Making it an "us against them" proposition and casting moderates and liberals as "them" along with the extremists seems counter-productive.
*no offence, but for the purposes of my argument, he is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If their concern is the erosion of civil rights by the religious extremists wouldn't it make more sense to get those theists (and there are a lot of us) who agree with them to work with them rather than lumping us all together and calling us idiots?
Perhaps. But that's looking at it as a strategic battle, which most atheists don't.
In my experience, to most atheists, the issue is not one of societal warfare but rather simple rationality -- and by that standard, the claims of liberal theology are no more rational than the claims of fundamentalist theology; they're just less easily falsified.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately kmbboots, our issue is just as much with religion itself as it is with the extremists.
And so, while I will never call anyone an idiot just for being a theist, I will criticize your religion if I believe it is harmful.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom and Javert, that, in my opinion is where the atheists make the same mistake that religions do; they care more about what people believe than what people do.
If this struggle is to accomplish anything good, I think that the "battle lines" should be drawn not between theists and atheists, but between those who want to control what other people believe and do (beyond demonstrable harm) and those who don't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom made an important point that i would've said as well, but there are a few other things too.
I'll start by saying that in theory I agree with kmbboots. For most of my life I've been a very to each their own type of person. You can believe whatever you want to believe as long as it doesn't affect me adversely. My goal isn't to make everyone think the same way as me, it's to have everyone be able to leave in peace together. Converting you to an atheist is not a necessary condition for that, or at least shouldn't be or doesn't have to be.
But it's not all as simple as that. Like Tom says, it's a matter of rationality. So though our major beef is with extremists(whether they be muslim suicide bombers or the religious rights eroding our civil liberties), how exactly do you combat that? It's a matter of faith for them. And by allowing the faith of moderates and vaguely spiritual people to go unquestioned and uncriticized, it leds directly to the inability to criticize the faith of the extremists. All they're doing is following their holy books, and doing what they believe is right based on their faith.
Dawkins has chosen to attack all religion because it's something he views as irrational as a whole. I've said before I don't know if it's the most effective way of ending extremism OR converting people to atheism. But that's also not to say that it's completely ineffective. He's stated on multiple occasions that his book isn't necessarily written to convert the faithful, but more for the people who are confused, who are questioning their faith, who feel that something is wrong or missing but don't have or know enough information to help them through the process.
So while I have many problems with religion itself, i think it's important for me to state that I'm not interested in converting everyone to atheism, but when trying to combat irrationality it's toeing a fine line to work with people of faith and yet not offend them at the same time. How do I convince the extremists that gay marriage isn't a sin without attacking the religion itself? I can pose countless rational arguments, but if the other side always comes back to "my book says so", we're at an impasse.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately kmbboots, our issue is just as much with religion itself as it is with the extremists.
And so, while I will never call anyone an idiot just for being a theist, I will criticize your religion if I believe it is harmful.
I'm not sure that those statements (at least how I'm reading them) go together well.
Are you assuing that religion itself does harm? Or do you have a problem with religion even if it doesn't do harm and even if it does good?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like Tom says, it's a matter of rationality.
It's not really. It's a matter of materialism. Rationality doesn't necessarily have a problem with religion. While specific religions or specific religious beliefs may violate rationality, religion as a concept itself does not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Demonstrable harm. The truth that religious freedom for others is essential to religious freedoms for oneself. The argument that secular authority is as bad for religion as religion is for secular authority.*
Look at cultural and social justice issues that might make people more extreme than they need to be? What is really religion and what is a "religious" response to social issues.
Moderates can and do criticize extremists. And often we can be effective when we "speak the language". But because we are not extreme, we tend to get drowned out by either end.
And, practically, I don't think the evangelical atheists are going to change as many minds to their point of view as they are going to harden hearts against it.
*Did you see or read Obama's speech?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately kmbboots, our issue is just as much with religion itself as it is with the extremists.
And so, while I will never call anyone an idiot just for being a theist, I will criticize your religion if I believe it is harmful.
I'm not sure that those statements (at least how I'm reading them) go together well.
Are you assuing that religion itself does harm? Or do you have a problem with religion even if it doesn't do harm and even if it does good?
I should have specified that I will criticize the parts of the religion that I see as harmful.
I don't think I'm as extreme as Christopher Hitchens, but I do share his view that there doesn't seem to be anything good that religion does that cannot also be done without religion. (For example, yes religions facilitate giving money to the poor. But, do you need a religion to give money to the poor? No.)
Whereas there are many things that religions do that cause harm that are primarily done because of religion.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I was looking forward to this turn of the conversation, but I don't think I'm going to have the time to address it adequately for a little bit. I'm going to withdraw, while reserving the right to re-enter it either tonight or this weekend at around this point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that religions start doing the most harm when they make exactly the mistake that the evangelical atheists are making: deciding what others should believe. That we alone have the truth and others should think as we do. The worst things religion has done have stemmed from this.
I believe it is our most grievous error; I don't want it to be yours.
edit to add: Aw, MrSquicky. Come back soon.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, I was looking forward to this turn of the conversation, but I don't think I'm going to have the time to address it adequately for a little bit. I'm going to withdraw, while reserving the right to re-enter it either tonight or this weekend at around this point.
Please present your ticket upon arrival, your reservation will be good for up to 48 hours at which time it will become null and void, though redeemable for one free hamburger at McDonalds.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes. It's the only conclusion we have, in fact, drawn. I'm sorry, but we are not required to keep an open mind for infinite periods; there comes a point when you have to say "No, this is not a reasonable theory and I will spend no more effort keeping my mind open on the subject." Just as you have done with Scientology, a point I have made several times and you have signally failed to address.
Don't presume to tell me what I have done with Scientology. I said right now that my conclusion is that it is not true, but I never ONCE have said there is no way it could ever be true. I've always conceded that I could be wrong in my convictions, but they are what they are.
You on the other hand presume to know factually that I am wrong when time and time again your knowledge on MY theology has been shown to be inaccurate and faulty. By admitting that you have reached a point where you will not even consider that you may be wrong, you have closed all discussion on the matter and I won't bother discussing this topic with you.
I've enjoyed much of what you had to say, but obviously I did not appreciate your insults to me personally. If you can decide that perhaps you don't know ENOUGH to prove that God can't exist we can talk again, but until then no.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not insulted you personally. Your theology is not relevant, because it is all based on the premise that JS was telling the truth, which I do not believe; what you build on top of that faulty axiom is irrelevant to the truth of the axiom. As for proving that your god does not exist, I don't need to; the burden of proof is on you to show that it does, or else you are going to have to go about disproving every other religion in the world.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As for proving that your god does not exist, I don't need to; the burden of proof is on you to show that it does, or else you are going to have to go about disproving every other religion in the world.
I don't quite understand this. I don't necessarily have to disprove other religions in order for mine to be true. Our understanding of God is necessarily incomplete. Other religions could very well have parts of the picture that I don't have or need. Or could be valid paths to the truth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, kmb, but now I was talking to BlackBlade, who for all his faults is at least willing to appeal to evidence and doesn't consider truth to be a matter of personal choice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: Of course there is no real similarity in that regard. There is no inherent harm in "thinking" that someone else should believe something else. There is no inherent harm in "saying" it either* Where the line crosses into demonstrable harm is when physical force or governmental power is co-opted into influencing thought. Dawkins has never proposed any governmental restrictions on religion (beyond what is already covered by separation of church and state of course). As extreme as Hitchens is (and I'm not a big fan of him actually), even he has not advocated anything beyond talk, albeit very eloquent and provocative talk This is part of (along with the extremist argument) why I have such a strong issue to the over-simplification that people often make which is of the form, "there are two sides and if we just go with the average, that is the moderate position which by default must be reasonable and correct". Sometimes this just encourages sloppy thinking. People often believe whatever label is repeated most loudly rather than actually examining positions.
There are real people, real fundamentalists that do wish to co-opt governmental power in favour of specific religions.
Dawkins and Hitchens or any of these atheists that are labelled as "evangelical" or "extreme" in this discussion have not really advocated this or other actual policies that *are* extreme. To say they have and then attack it is just a strawman.
*I'm not even sure if one could avoid thinking or saying that one may have discovered "a better way." For example, all of capitalism is predicated on the belief that better alternatives do develop and have to compete after being exposed to the public.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that religions start doing the most harm when they make exactly the mistake that the evangelical atheists are making: deciding what others should believe.
The problem is that even religious moderates want to decide not what others believe, but what they do. How many states have passed amendments by popular vote to make gay marriage illegal? What is the non-religious reasoning behind this sort of law?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The problem is that even religious moderates want to decide not what others believe, but what they do. How many states have passed amendments by popular vote to make gay marriage illegal? What is the non-religious reasoning behind this sort of law?
Not all of us. Some of us think that government should stay out of the business of issuing Sacraments. And if government insists on it, it should be done equally.
But still, too many states.
I think that the reasons are as cultural as they are religious. I think that people use religion (and it is a powerful tool) to justify their own prejudices. Easy to do. My faith requires (whether official policy or not) that I work for justice rather than discrimination. You will find that there are other faiths that - even officially - believe this. Even mainstream ones.
But things do take too long to change.
I still maintain that thinking that your way is the only right way for everyone will lead to actions and coercion. Atheism is not exempt from this. See the Soviet Union and China.
edit to add: I'm not saying Dawkins and his crowd are anywhere near this or have any intention of it or even that it will occur in their lifetimes. Just that this is where is starts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that religions start doing the most harm when they make exactly the mistake that the evangelical atheists are making: deciding what others should believe.
Do you believe people should be entitled to believe that they are Napoleon?
---------
quote:I still maintain that thinking that your way is the only right way for everyone will lead to actions and coercion. Atheism is not exempt from this. See the Soviet Union and China.
Your examples are exactly why I keep making the point that this isn't some culture war about "atheism," but is rather about the importance of rational epistemology. Chinese "atheism" was just religion, with the state as "god."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
