quote:Originally posted by Strider: Also, KoM, I think you're a digital guy living in an analog world.
Heh. I like that.
KoM, expanding a bit on that, though, perhaps it would help to consider that most people are not so analytical as you (and me and probably many others on this forum) and instead run on a more purpose-driven interpretation of the world they live in. The goal here is "the good life" or something similar, and acquiring truth is only one method used in achieving that goal. From this perspective, concepts like "true for me" make perfect sense, and really, there is no logical - and more importantly practical - reason to change beliefs that are working out just fine for them, no matter how wrong they may be objectively.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we're back to the question of whether truth matters. Most people, I think, would at least profess that they would rather know truth than believe a lie. I'm inclined to take them at their word; if the one says, "I wish to be a better person", who am I to contradict them? Now, if someone is willing to stand up in public and say "I would rather believe a comfortable lie", then fine, we have no common ground and will eventually have to settle our differences by violence. But I don't think there can be many such confessions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the one disagrees with the other, and further says "I do not care about your evidence, I will believe this no matter what"; and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other; what method do you suggest other than violence?
quote:But as you cannot disprove their belief, you cannot have said to have proven them believing in a lie.
What is with theists and 'proof'? If there is no good evidence for something, that's a sufficient condition to consider it false, right there. The probability that (some complicated X) is true, and (there is no evidence for X), is on the same order as scrambled eggs spontaneously reconstituting themselves and hatching into a chicken. This is the standard of 'proof' that is applied anywhere except religion, and it's a damn good one. "You have no evidence" is proof that the belief is false, as the word is usually used in English; the only reason to demand proof in the sense used in logic and mathematics is emotional attachment to the belief.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other
Why must it be settled one way or another? Even if you insist on a fairly stringent interpretation of "must", plenty of theists are okay with entirely the same public agenda as atheists. What about the disagreement between the groups "must" be settled, and why? What bad thing will happen if it is not settled?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I have no good evidence for something, and I have no clear evidence against it, I consider it unknown, not false.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... it's unknown whether there's a teapot in orbit around Mars.
It's unknown whether there's a civilisation under the surface of the Sun.
It's unknown whether leprechauns exist.
That is silly; and what's more, there is clear evidence against all revealed religions, in the shape of all the other dang revelations that contradict them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Granted, I don't base any hypotheses on such speculations, and I admit the odds of any of them being true is likely vanishingly small. For all intents and purposes, I would live my life as if they were untrue. (Actually I wouldn't spend much time thinking about them one way or another until a Sun-Man tried to steal my car or something)
But I fail to see the use in leaping to declare their absolute falsehood. And I can see harm in deciding to declare something false when that assumption may blind you to contrary evidence if does show up (note the length of time it took for bullheaded scientists to accept the notion of meteorites, for example).
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Chris is saying, KoM, is that he does not see the harm in his wife's belief that there is a teapot in orbit around one of the outer planets. It doesn't actually affect her behavior in any way that he can perceive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now we're back to the question of whether truth matters.
No, of course it matters. The distinguishing question isn't if but why and to what extent. Generally speaking, yes, I think most people would rather know (believe?) a truth than a lie, but that only becomes an issue pragmatically worth acting on when a false belief significantly contradicts their worldview. A simple belief in a higher power, on its own and especially if internally justified, will never have that problem. Dogmatic beliefs most certainly have that potential, but this is not an issue with Chris' wife as he has described her.
edit: or what Tom said.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the one disagrees with the other, and further says "I do not care about your evidence, I will believe this no matter what"; and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other; what method do you suggest other than violence?
quote:But I fail to see the use in leaping to declare their absolute falsehood.
There is a difference between "This statement is absolutely false, now and forever, amen" and "This statement is, to the best of our knowledge, not true". (Speaking of digital people and analog worlds...) I nonetheless think that people should not believe in statements of the second kind, and I think most people who want to believe in true things would agree. If one is 99.9% certain that X is not true, then one ought to take the consequence of that and treat it as false, which includes trying to convince others of its falsehood.
Another point which I brought up before: What does it mean "to believe"? You are apparently unable to identify any overt action of your wife's that depends on her faith. Presumably words are excepted from this; I assume she would not say "I believe in God" unless she did in fact do so. But words apart, just what does 'belief' mean in this case? And if it means nothing, ought you not to point this out to her? Probably she does not desire to have 'beliefs' which are only empty words; few people do.
And this brings me to another point: To believe without action or anticipation of experience is a manifestation of the Dark Side, and an excellent way to destroy one's mind. To believe that "believing in X is good for me" is to turn your mind into an Escher drawing; it is quite literal doublethink. There is no belief in X there, only a belief about beliefs, and how can you have any conviction on such grounds? Suppose I did a study and found that theists are happier than atheists; ought I on these grounds to convert? And how could I do so? I would have to ignore the actual reason for my wanting to convert, forget about it, and then look for reasons to convert - make up the evidence, essentially - all the while studiously not thinking about why I was trying to find evidence! No doubt this is possible, people are capable of some amazing gymnastics, but you cannot tell me that this would be good for my brain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the one disagrees with the other, and further says "I do not care about your evidence, I will believe this no matter what"; and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other; what method do you suggest other than violence?
Democracy. Compromise. Respectfulness.
Democracy is violence by proxy, in which the armies agree that the superior numbers will be treated as the victor, within certain limits on what terms can be extracted. How would you like to compromise between the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"? Perhaps we can agree that it exists only on alternate days? We could bring democracy into it too, by voting on the proposed solution! As for respect, I have none for those who won't settle disagreements by appeal to evidence, nor will I pretend to any.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Democracy. Compromise. Respecfulness.
Make sure you let us know when Israel and Palestine have gotten done with their respectful compromise about which people's God has right to the land.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
do really think that if it were proven to the all the Isreali and Palestinian people that god did not exist that the suddenly the middle east conflict would end?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the assertion is not that people with differing beliefs about religion can always come to a compromise existence, but that in many cases they can. For instance, the huge numbers of religious people who have gotten along quite well without violence in large numbers of societies for quite some time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That does not appear to have anything to do with the possibility of compromise. Nonetheless, consider that Lisa, who has called for literal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, has indeed indicated that she would give up the struggle if she were convinced that her god did not exist.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edited because me daughter hit the post button before I was done. Maybe I'll should do this after she goes to bed.)
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... For instance, the huge numbers of religious people who have gotten along quite well without violence in large numbers of societies for quite some time.
Seems like a short time to me. I'm thinking "too soon to tell"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I nonetheless think that people should not believe in statements of the second kind, and I think most people who want to believe in true things would agree.
And yet so many of the people in the world defy this.
quote:But words apart, just what does 'belief' mean in this case? And if it means nothing, ought you not to point this out to her?
Belief in this case means she has accepted a course of action, a guideline for living, and a hope for the future. We have indeed discussed religion, she is aware that I do not believe in it, and there we stay. I flatly refuse to harangue her about it, especially since I don't care.
quote:How would you like to compromise between the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"?
Why do we have to? Instead we compromise on how much influence such beliefs have on people who do not share them. It does not affront me that people believe irrational things.
quote:As for respect, I have none for those who won't settle disagreements by appeal to evidence, nor will I pretend to any.
Fair enough. I have no respect for those who assume that violence is the only way to settle a disagreement.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been peaceful multireligious societies for well over two thousand years. What would be a long time for you?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, no there haven't. I can't think of one that I would classify as peaceful beyond two hundred years or so (maybe three hundred at a stretch).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears that you are all ignoring the second clause of my if statement: Violence occurs when the parties are unwilling to compromise. To then say "But we can find a compromise!" is a bit orthogonal. In addition to this, note that nowhere have I stated that I am willing to compromise on this subject. Truth is truth; you either believe it or not; had I the power, I would compel belief. On this point I'm as inflexible as Lisa, although the specific statements we consider true are obviously very different.
quote:And yet so many of the people in the world defy this.
Many people also believe that theft is wrong, and nonetheless steal. Shall we take them at their words, or at their actions?
quote:Belief in this case means she has accepted a course of action, a guideline for living, and a hope for the future.
Words, just words, signifying nothing. What specifically does she do, or not do, in consequence of her belief?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM; Compromising on getting along is not the same as compromising on truth. Clearly you are willing to compromise on getting along, as you aren't killing theists.
Mucus: to take the odd example, many people in Republican and Imperial Rome (and later Byzantium) had conflicting religious beliefs, yet engaged in hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence (of course, not everyone there did, but again, this is not saying everyone will, just that many will. Certainly many (multireligious) parts of the empire were as peaceful as most of the world is today.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ummm, no there haven't. I can't think of one that I would classify as peaceful beyond two hundred years or so (maybe three hundred at a stretch).
Can you come up with a secular society that has been peaceful for a comparable period of time? Atheistic societies don't have a track record for peace either.
If you think a eventual expulsion of religion will also excise violent behavior in human beings, I think you will be disappointed. If you think religion has got to go in order to eventually extinguish violence again I think you will be disappointed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly you are willing to compromise on getting along, as you aren't killing theists.
Purely tactical considerations.
I hope you are being sarcastic, or at the very least sardonic. I don't think that point of view can approach even the flimsiest of moral defense.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if we thread together all your replies, we find that you would like to kill religious people, apparently because them being alive makes you pout (since you gave no other reason to support the premises of your argument as to why violence was a necessary consequence), but are refraining not because it might be immoral to do so or anything of the sort, but purely because of tactical reasons?
Oh, and I forgot that your pouting is also the reason you feel everyone else should kill theists, too, apparently.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I may be guilty of a slight overstatement there. It's not theists, as such, I would be sending to the biodiesel vats, but the ones who do not consider evidence paramount in forming beliefs. Lisa and BlackBlade would survive my purges; Chris and kmb would not. The former two are only guilty of evaluating evidence wrongly; a mistake, but not a killing matter. The latter have turned to the Dark Side. It seems possible that you will consider this outcome ironic; please feel free.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Since your moral reasoning proceeds from false axioms, I'm happy to ignore it.
Whereas you're still struggling to demonstrate why (being generous to your way of seeing things) believing in teapots around Saturn requires a violent response.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Since your moral reasoning proceeds from false axioms, I'm happy to ignore it.
Whereas you're still struggling to demonstrate why (being generous to your way of seeing things) believing in teapots around Saturn requires a violent response.
Probably our posts crossed, but I'll reiterate: Believing in teapots on Mars is one thing. I'm prepared to put up with that, although my ideal society would perhaps not have laws against signs proclaiming "No dogs or theists allowed". But believing that the teapot on Mars can be proclaimed without reference to evidence for or against, on the grounds perhaps that such beliefs make you feel better - that is the Dark Side, and I won't have it. That is a statement that one's mind is so open the brain has fallen out, and brainless people are very dangerous. (Just watch Night of the Living Dead if you don't believe this.) You might as well keep a chimpanzee in your living room, as trust a non-evidentialist with modern machinery.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: OK I somewhat see where you are coming from, but sometimes there are considerations for not knowing the truth. My best friend's father died just a few years ago, and he was extremely close to him. A few weeks later I inadvertently found out some less than positive but reliable information from a source about his father that I did not think he knew. It was not anything of direct import, like say my friend had a half brother somewhere or that his father was a baby eater, but it was definitely something I thought he might want to know. I hated the idea of knowing what I did while he continued in ignorance.
Finally one day I asked him, "In regards to your father, if I knew something that might alter the way you remember him in a negative way, would you want to know it, or would you rather just remember him the way you do as he is dead and gone now. He told me he'd rather not know, I know many people who feel that way.
I am hard pressed to think that he was an idiot for feeling that way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So not only did you tell him that his father had done something bad, you did so in such a way that he can't even get any closure on the point? (I remind you that "the most important part of a secret, is that the secret exists". He must certainly realise that you would not have asked him such a question unless you knew something unpleasant.) But that aside, I do think he was wrong to speak as he did. 'Idiot' is not the right word, this being a moral question rather than one of intelligence; rather I would say he was weak. He did not live up to the correct moral code. Perhaps a theist would say that he sinned.
Edit to add: And even then he did not fall completely into the Dark Side. He failed on this single test, and sinned; but he did not assert that his sin was virtue; he did not claim that to ignore evidence is acceptable in certain areas. If I can borrow Mormon theology for a moment, it is the difference between a single act of homosexual intercourse, and asserting that such intercourse is not sinful.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to respond to a post above, but by this point I don't see much point, especially since I'll no doubt be purged soon.
I've expressed already in this thread, several times, that one's belief bothers me far less than one's fanaticism about that belief, and King of Men has demonstrated an interest in becoming far more of a dangerous fanatic than any hypothetical leprechaun believer. So I'm not really sure where to go from this point, other than to edge away warily.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Can you come up with a secular society that has been peaceful for a comparable period of time? Atheistic societies don't have a track record for peace either.
Too soon to tell
You do remember where thats from right?
But seriously, I don't think we've even had "secular societies" by my definition for more than a hundred years tops and no real atheistic ones either. However, I do *suspect* that secular societies have been a good force for reducing violence. But I don't really *know* if this is really the case or if we're just holding our breath and helping prepare for the next big real blood-letting when Bush III is elected and nukes Iran or some damn thing.
Maybe history will record this as just the time when Muslims and Christians were just taking advantage of a brief respite to jocky for position when the real war starts, who knows?
And hence, its too soon to tell.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
That was a pretty good place to channel Premiere Zhou 周恩來.
To you, what would a secular society look like at a basic level? Are 1950's China and Post-revolution France poor examples of atheistic societies? Or were they merely potentially good, but hastily executed?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are both good examples of secular governments, but as societies I don't think you could call them secular.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... Mucus: to take the odd example, many people in Republican and Imperial Rome (and later Byzantium) had conflicting religious beliefs, yet engaged in hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence (of course, not everyone there did, but again, this is not saying everyone will, just that many will. Certainly many (multireligious) parts of the empire were as peaceful as most of the world is today.
Its a valid point.
The polytheistic, pagan, and Imperial cult bits do remind me of dynastic China (which also had long spells of peace), so it may be an interesting point. Perhaps paganism and polytheism are a step above the certainty of monotheism. *shrug*
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Are 1950's China and Post-revolution France poor examples of atheistic societies? Or were they merely potentially good, but hastily executed?
I'm less familiar with post-revolution France. But at least on 1950's China we may have differing definitions of atheist. For me, an atheist society doesn't simply mean that you remove the Christian god. It means you remove all gods.
In a very real way, Mao simply wanted to update the imperial cult and put himself up as a god, so thats a no go.
Here's an example of a very basic test to see whether you're in an atheistic society. You should be able to "desecrate" a cracker, a Koran, and Bible, or even the God Delusion without danger. link
In Mao's China, you could get killed for innocently using newspapers with Mao's image to cover your walls the wrong way. Instead, you had to ask for forgiveness in front of pictures of the guy.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Are 1950's China and Post-revolution France poor examples of atheistic societies? Or were they merely potentially good, but hastily executed?
I'm less familiar with post-revolution France. But at least on 1950's China we may have differing definitions of atheist. For me, an atheist society doesn't simply mean that you remove the Christian god. It means you remove all gods.
In a very real way, Mao simply wanted to update the imperial cult and put himself up as a god, so thats a no go.
Here's an example of a very basic test to see whether you're in an atheistic society. You should be able to "desecrate" a cracker, a Koran, and Bible, or even the God Delusion without danger. link
In Mao's China, you could get killed for innocently using newspapers with Mao's image to cover your walls the wrong way. Instead, you had to ask for forgiveness in front of pictures of the guy.
I think that's a good reason for writing off China, your example of Mao in the newspapers is known to me, I just didn't think about it.
I'm not terribly knowledgeable of the subject but post-revolution France was not quite the same thing as China in that I don't believe there was a Mao figure.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the sense of a revolutionary charismatic leader, no. Nonetheless, I do not believe you would have been well advised to, let us say, burn the restored Bourbon king in effigy. I also do not think - laite or none - that a clever person would burn a Bible and then brag about it in public, or throw a consecrated wafer in his privy.
Edit: And in any case, France from 1815 was hardly very aggressive, as Great Power aggression goes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I have already specified that I am not willing to accept that compromise; you are solving a quite different problem, which I did not ask about. I demand freedom from religion, and I'm willing to kill to get it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see I'm contradicting myself slightly here; let me clarify. What I outlined to BlackBlade is my actual position. What I said to Tres is a hypothetical, intended to demonstrate the circumstances in which his compromise will not work. I don't in fact demand freedom from religion, although that would certainly be very nice; but I do demand freedom from non-evidentialism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
