Could we please just have one centralized "I spit on religion, I despise religious people, ridicule of people of faith is necessary" thread?
Do we need a new thread for every momentary need on the part of a neighbor to spew venom?
This isn't even a poll. ::)
;)
I just want to know people's opinions ::)
I spit on nothing! Take that!
Lucky this dude doesn't post here.
(http://astoreisgood.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/tnbm_cover.jpg)
Ahh Karl, I was hoping for a poll voting option for MN Dave. :(
;D
I spit on theeeeeee
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wowinsider.com/media/2009/02/ah021209khan.jpg)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 19, 2009, 12:39:20 PM
I spit on theeeeeee
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wowinsider.com/media/2009/02/ah021209khan.jpg)
COOL!
It would have been nice to be able to vote though. Like, are you for or against spitting?
Me, I'm against spitting.
I spit on spitting.
Oh.
:o
You want to spit on Jesus? Spit upwards and see what happens. ;)
This is all my fault ... :'(
I'm going to start a "One Centralized Thread" thread. No Satan-bashing allowed. Only discussion of thread centralization issues will be permitted.
I sympathize with Karl on this, though not for reasons of agreement about insults. Having all these threads is confusing and they tend to bleed into each other and fragment the useful discussion. It's just harder to follow a discussion that wanders like this, and I've found myself inadvertently replying to a post in one thread with a post in another, no doubt to the consternation of the 3 or 4 readers who actually care. I don't see any easy solution to this, since I think the reason there are so many of these is that people like to do restarts when things get stalled on an uninteresting point. I don't start threads often and they're not about religion when I do, so I'm just taking things as they come.
By the way, posts about religion that are opposed to it should not be assumed to be venomous. That needs to be demonstrated, as does the relevance of that to the larger discussion. Have you ever seen the reaction of a group of scientists to a paper they disagree with? Venomous covers it nicely, no quarter is asked or given. That's good, since ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position. One also might consider why quarter, that is a fictitious "respect", should be granted to any class of ideas, and why believers plead for it. I sure wouldn't beg for mercy for my ideas. Of course they can stand on their own, and that might have something to do with my indifference to insults to them. Instead, I reply substantively when there is something substantive to reply to.
"Please don't insult my godlet, he's feeling poorly just now"
"Well, since you put it like that..."
No, we won't do that.
I just like to start threads. :-[
'ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position'
simply inseperable? that betrays the weakness of the ridiculer.
dj
Quote from: david johnson on June 19, 2009, 02:48:56 PM
'ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position'
simply inseperable? that betrays the weakness of the ridiculer.
dj
Well, I tried to be respectful, but apparently it was not seen that way.
I think Karl's just being funny. You aren't the cause of this, Joe.
I find this inconsistent. The entire point of "faith" is believing something despite the fact that there is not evidence to support it. Why would a person of "faith" object to the fact of the lack of evidence being discussed? I find the Easter Bunny to be one of the more plausible tenets of the Christian religion. What basis does anyone have for objecting to this statement.
Quote from: david johnson on June 19, 2009, 02:48:56 PM
'ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position'
simply inseperable? that betrays the weakness of the ridiculer.
dj
Not so, I'm afraid. Pay attention to the arguments. They're almost as much fun as the "insults".
Oh. yes. That word definitely requires quotation marks for you, drog. ::)
Quote from: drogulus on June 19, 2009, 01:14:22 PM
Have you ever seen the reaction of a group of scientists to a paper they disagree with? Venomous covers it nicely, no quarter is asked or given. That's good, since ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position.
That's a breakdown of rationality, demonstrating only the unscientific and irrational attitudes of the scientists who indulge in it.
I spit in my kitchen sink and not because I want to bash it. :)
Quote from: drogulus on June 19, 2009, 04:41:56 PM
Not so, I'm afraid. Pay attention to the arguments. They're almost as much fun as the "insults".
of course i'm right.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 19, 2009, 03:38:38 PM
The entire point of "faith" is believing something despite the fact that there is not evidence to support it.
Nope. Please see here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13002.msg320762.html#msg320762).
Quote from: Catison on June 20, 2009, 10:41:11 AM
Nope. Please see here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13002.msg320762.html#msg320762).
Words do have meanings, outside of peoples meandering web postings.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith (2b)
Quote from: Scarpia on June 20, 2009, 12:51:07 PM
Words do have meanings, outside of peoples meandering web postings.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith (2b)
You seemed to have skipped over (2a), which is the meaning of faith in this context.
As in having faith that your friend will pick you up from the airport on time, because she has a history of doing what she says, or faith that your wife loves you, because her behavior is characteristic of love, or faith in the veracity of the news article you just read, because...?
Some around here revel in their intellectual dishonesty. Most of them probably don't mean to be so dishonest. They're dishonest with themselves first, thus can hardly help but be dishonest with others. In most cases it's probably remedial, the cause spiritual rather than organic: self-aggrandizement in its myriad manifestations; the contrary of Shakespeare's admonition, "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
If you're lying, and you don't know that you're lying because you're lying to yourself, and because of that essential dishonesty you cannot recognize your lies and self-deception even when others point them out to you, then you're screwed. Once this pathology is established, it seems to take an act of God to get out of the rut.
Yes, Scarpia. Quit lying to yourself or DidacticDavid will put a hurtin' on ya. 0:)
Quote from: MN Dave on June 21, 2009, 06:57:54 AM
Yes, Scarpia. Quit lying to yourself or DidacticDavid will put a hurtin' on ya. 0:)
Does DR have a valid point, MN Dave? Or are you caught up in his delivery?
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on June 21, 2009, 08:42:14 AM
Does DR have a valid point, MN Dave? Or are you caught up in his delivery?
No and yes.
Watch me now as I attempt to keep out of these threads, just I as pass by churches and places where humanitarians congregate in the real world.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 21, 2009, 08:49:55 AM
No and yes.
You honestly think that scarpia was using the "correct" definition of the word, then, even when there was another completely appropriate definition lying right in front of him? I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a motive for his/her error, but it's quite obvious, as Catison pointed out, that just because someone can be made to sound foolish, it doesn't mean that they are.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 21, 2009, 09:03:03 AM
Watch me now as I attempt to keep out of these threads, just I as pass by churches and places where humanitarians congregate in the real world.
There's a place where everyone belongs:
(http://bitcast-p.v1.sjc1.bitgravity.com/break/dnet/media/2008/4/09apr16-church-billboard.jpg)
0:)
Gee, MN Dave, I'd really like to have your approval an' everything, but when folks go out of their way to trash other people, especially as dishonestly and persistently as some around here, I sometimes call them on it. If they get offended when called to account for their nasty BS, there's a simple solution--stop treating others so shittily! To make an extreme analogy, you seem perfectly content with rape going on all around, as long as no one tries to defend the victim and hold the rapist to account.
Get real, Dave. Those guys are persistent assholes toward anyone who doesn't share their pathetically narrow-minded view of the world, and in their bigoted assaults on others and their beliefs, they are every bit as nasty as their bigoted stereotypes of intolerant, bible-thumping fundamentalists. Hypocrites!
Quote from: Elgarian on June 20, 2009, 01:19:27 AM
That's a breakdown of rationality, demonstrating only the unscientific and irrational attitudes of the scientists who indulge in it.
I don't think so. Anyway the context is what matters. Ideas are treated harshly as part of the process of challenging them. I call it a stress test. What would you call the kind of coddling recommended here? What does it say about the quality of ideas that need its protection? Never mind, the question answers itself. You protect the weak, and the strong can protect themselves.
So the believer say my ideas are absolutely true, the gods existence is beyond reason and certain, too! Furthermore, my ideas must be respected or I will go running to a moderator:
Mom!! He's hitting me! Make him stop! Yup....just brimming with confidence!
:D
Quote from: drogulus on June 21, 2009, 11:29:22 AM
So the believer say my ideas are absolutely true, the gods existence is beyond reason and certain, too! Furthermore, my ideas must be respected or I will go running to a moderator:
Mom!! He's hitting me! Make him stop!
Yup....just brimming with confidence! :D
Where is your evidence for this? The problem is where people are denigrated, not ideas. There is no rule here about respecting ideas, there are rules about not insulting people.
Stay clear of the latter and you will be within the rules and incur no contact with the moderators.
Knight
Quote from: drogulus on June 21, 2009, 11:29:22 AM
I don't think so. Anyway the context is what matters.
This is a sticking point for me. I too have seen academics of a wide variety (including scientists) behave in the way you recommend. When it happens, what they say is driven by the wrong motives (taking them far from the rationality they may claim to be defending), and the manner in which they say it is unacceptable. It isn't rational discourse. It's bad-tempered bedlam. In science, testing and accepting the failure of tests is part of the process. Ridicule has no place in it.
In such a barbaric arena, who would be so foolish as not to realise that their turn for ridicule might be next? Who is so certain of their ground as to adopt that attitude of superior wisdom, knowing how stupid they may look next week when the ground shifts? If to be wrong is to be ridiculous, where would that leave
you, if you were wrong (as I believe you to be in numerous instances, for reasons which I've given)? Come on - this isn't a defensible position you're adopting. Let's talk about real stuff, not this nonsense.
Quote from: knight on June 21, 2009, 11:46:04 AM
Where is your evidence for this? The problem is where people are denigrated, not ideas. There is no rule here about respecting ideas, there are rules about not insulting people.
Stay clear of the latter and you will be within the rules and incur no contact with the moderators.
Knight
I'm aware of that and furthermore I'm the chief advocate for it, and have been for years. But you can state the obvious if you like. I'll continue as always. Maybe you can get some of my opponents to see the wisdom of this approach. Good luck, I'm pulling for you.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2009, 12:07:37 PM
This is a sticking point for me. I too have seen academics of a wide variety (including scientists) behave in the way you recommend. When it happens, what they say is driven by the wrong motives (taking them far from the rationality they may claim to be defending), and the manner in which they say it is unacceptable. It isn't rational discourse. It's bad-tempered bedlam. In science, testing and accepting the failure of tests is part of the process. Ridicule has no place in it.
In such a barbaric arena, who would be so foolish as not to realise that their turn for ridicule might be next? Who is so certain of their ground as to adopt that attitude of superior wisdom, knowing how stupid they may look next week when the ground shifts? If to be wrong is to be ridiculous, where would that leave you, if you were wrong (as I believe you to be in numerous instances, for reasons which I've given)? Come on - this isn't a defensible position you're adopting. Let's talk about real stuff, not this nonsense.
I disagee. And I don't assume high motives. Ridicule is important. It's value as a shock tactic, for jarring people out of their complacent assumptions is recognized not only in science but in literature. I have no doubt that satire stems in part from malicious motives as well as the desire for reform. It puts these both to good use.
And it worked in my case. I can't tell you how much I was irked by those posters on audio sites who relentlessly mocked me and the other audiophiles. Why did they have to be so mean? No doubt it was from bad motives. Though I can't speak for anyone else I think that the mocking tone had a powerful effect that in the end was beneficial. I had to deal with the fact that an obviously intelligent person not only disagreed with me but thought that some of what I was saying was downright ludicrous. This was intolerable right up to the moment I realised that they were right.
Quote from: Catison on June 20, 2009, 03:06:47 PM
You seemed to have skipped over (2a), which is the meaning of faith in this context.
It is somewhat strange that he would use a regular dictionary for a technical subject. For example, if I wanted to know what electrical impedance is, I would go to a technical work on the subject. Same thing here: for a technical theological term, one should look at the relevant works.
I should point out that (2b) contains the word "proof" which is not the same as "evidence." One can have evidence for something which is less than proof, and I suggest this is usually the way it is.
Quote from: drogulus on June 21, 2009, 05:44:42 PM
Ridicule is important. It's value as a shock tactic, for jarring people out of their complacent assumptions is recognized
Well, I did say this was a sticking point for me, and I did explain why. An alternative way of jarring people out of their complacent assumptions might be simply to ignore them. That's the choice I now make.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 19, 2009, 12:36:47 PM
Lucky this dude doesn't post here.
(http://astoreisgood.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/tnbm_cover.jpg)
Anti-Religion is still religion! >:D
Quote from: corey on June 22, 2009, 06:49:51 AM
Anti-Religion is still religion! >:D
Sometimes, of course, but it need not be. It could be sheer nihilism. It could be (as seems usually the case) expected adolescent antipathy toward tradition and what's perceived as the status quo. And it often seems due simply to ignorance and self-deception about the role that religion plays in human society, reminiscent of adolescent disdain for classical music based on the belief that, say, Montovani is an example of what classical music is like.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 22, 2009, 07:30:17 AM
It could be sheer nihilism.
". . . Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."
(http://booreview.com/images/the_big_lebowski_the_dude_donny_walter_sobchak.jpg)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 22, 2009, 11:39:03 AM
". . . Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."
(http://booreview.com/images/the_big_lebowski_the_dude_donny_walter_sobchak.jpg)
LOL, I was thinking the same thing!
Me, too!
"I am the Walrus"
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 22, 2009, 07:30:17 AM
Sometimes, of course, but it need not be. It could be sheer nihilism. It could be (as seems usually the case) expected adolescent antipathy toward tradition and what's perceived as the status quo. And it often seems due simply to ignorance and self-deception about the role that religion plays in human society, reminiscent of adolescent disdain for classical music based on the belief that, say, Montovani is an example of what classical music is like.
mostly yes.
Another:
not really bashing:
Ah, American church advertising is a delight! :D
(Although the last two look just like the work of a bunch of freaks)
Quote from: corey on June 22, 2009, 06:49:51 AM
Anti-Religion is still religion! >:D
Well, that's not logical. :P Anti-X can't be X. That's how "anti" is defined.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 25, 2009, 03:16:54 AM
Well, that's not logical. :P Anti-X can't be X. That's how "anti" is defined.
You're not thinking freely enough. You've never heard of "equal and opposite reaction"?
Your pat dismissal is 'logical' in the comic 2-D ways of Mr Spock.
Quote from: Florestan on August 24, 2009, 10:35:30 PM
Ah, American church advertising is a delight! :D
(Although the last two look just like the work of a bunch of freaks)
You do realize I made these things up. You can make your own virtual church signs here. (http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/) The freak is yours truly. ;)
From a recent magazine article :
"Faith is a difficult word... Like God or soul or love, it repels definition. In The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defined faith as "belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." Faith is not an attachment to some supernatural order of facts. It is a way of living in the present, closer to a mindset or an attitude than a belief. Like any experience—like sweet or red or comfortable—faith can't be grasped through a definition. All you can do is describe situations where the experience might be had, and hope that those who have had it will recognize it....Faith is what's left when you stop responding to radical uncertainty with panic and denial."
Quote from: Joe Barron on August 25, 2009, 07:14:01 AM
You do realize I made these things up. You can make your own virtual church signs here. (http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/) The freak is yours truly. ;)
I thought they were hilarious. Unfortunately, here in the South there are real church signs almost as bad.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2009, 04:43:59 AM
You're not thinking freely enough.
That's a good one, Karl. ;D
Quote from: Joe Barron on August 25, 2009, 07:14:01 AM
You do realize I made these things up. You can make your own virtual church signs here. (http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/) The freak is yours truly. ;)
Yeah, "Cath
loic" was kinda a giveaway. ;)
Quote from: O Mensch on September 02, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
Yeah, "Cathloic" was kinda a giveaway. ;-)
Deleted.
I
hate you.
Quote from: Harpo on September 02, 2009, 06:20:11 PM
From a recent magazine article :
"Faith is a difficult word... Like God or soul or love, it repels definition. In The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defined faith as "belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." Faith is not an attachment to some supernatural order of facts. It is a way of living in the present, closer to a mindset or an attitude than a belief. Like any experience—like sweet or red or comfortable—faith can't be grasped through a definition. All you can do is describe situations where the experience might be had, and hope that those who have had it will recognize it....Faith is what's left when you stop responding to radical uncertainty with panic and denial."
Wow. Bierce's is a very narrow and restricted, even perverted, view of "faith," not unlike the views that seem to be held by some of the folks who frequent this forum. My own view has nothing of the supernatural in it (an aside--the supernatural is just natural phenomena we don't understand well enough to have predictive power about...yet). Faith is a matter not so much of knowledge or belief as of reliance. We have faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow; that our spouses have our best interests at heart; that if a politician's lips are moving then s/he's lying; that the can of soda we're drinking hasn't been contaminated by deadly toxins. Faith is rooted in empirical data.
In short, thanks for sharing the excerpt, Harpo. "Faith is what's left when you stop responding to radical uncertainty with panic and denial." Yep. Faith is a rational choice--perhaps the only rational choice for those unwilling to be paralyzed by doubt, dread, and fear.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 03, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
My own view has nothing of the supernatural in it (an aside--the supernatural is just natural phenomena we don't understand well enough to have predictive power about...yet). Faith is a matter not so much of knowledge or belief as of reliance. We have faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow; that our spouses have our best interests at heart; that if a politician's lips are moving then s/he's lying; that the can of soda we're drinking hasn't been contaminated by deadly toxins. Faith is rooted in empirical data.
Quoted because it's worth reading more than once.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 19, 2009, 12:32:58 PM
Could we please just have one centralized "I spit on religion, I despise religious people, ridicule of people of faith is necessary" thread?
Do we need a new thread for every momentary need on the part of a neighbor to spew venom?
Actually there shouldnt be any thread like this that gives people the chance to spew their hate.
You've missed the point, Saul. Royally, considering the post you cited.
Can't all the Davids on this board just get along? 0:)
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 09, 2009, 04:37:46 AM
Can't all the Davids on this board just get along? 0:)
Hear, hear! :)
Oh all right then deleted.
Good sport!
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 03, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
We have faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow; that our spouses have our best interests at heart; that if a politician's lips are moving then s/he's lying; that the can of soda we're drinking hasn't been contaminated by deadly toxins.
You do realize that these are apples and oranges, so to speak? 1. has nothing to do with faith. You can take your worst case doubter to an east-facing horizon and prove it every day. No faith needed. 2. through 4. have to do with trust, not faith.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 03, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Faith is rooted in empirical data.
If that were the case we wouldn't need faith because empirical data stands on its own feet without faith and if 'faith' is based on empirical data then we wouldn't have anything to cover the vast areas for which we lack empirical data.
Every day people all witness the same sun rising, the grass growing, rain falling, and grass, rain and sunshine turning into the flesh of cows which we, well some of us, eat in order to continue living and breathing, and witnessing the unfolding of creation.
Some people see in this empirical data the existence of God. Others not.
Quote from: Franco on September 09, 2009, 10:07:33 AM
Some people see in this empirical data the existence of God. Others not.
No. The ones who see God, see God in the lack of empirical data on
why all that exists.
All those other Daves are posers.
The first step toward wisdom is recognizing how little we know.
Arrogance precludes learning, condemning us to everlasting ignorance.
Nothing closes a mind so tightly as unquestioned belief that one already knows.
Quote from: MN Dave on September 09, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
All those other Daves are posers.
Thou shalt have no Daves before me. . . .
Quote from: O Mensch on September 09, 2009, 10:14:34 AM
No. The ones who see God, see God in the lack of empirical data on why all that exists.
Why does it exist?
Quote from: O Mensch on September 09, 2009, 10:14:34 AM
No. The ones who see God, see God in the lack of empirical data on why all that exists.
I really don't want to get involved in another of these pointless exchanges across differing world views, but this statement demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the personal experiences of people who make this claim about 'seeing God'. People who make this claim with conviction are not describing a perception of a
lack of something. They're often affirming an experience (sometimes overwhelming) of an unanswerable
presence.
Because there are no objective data for you to gather concerning this experience (other than behaviouristic data), and because you (apparently) reject any other way of acquiring knowledge, your view that this perception of God equates to a 'lack of empirical data' satisfies
you. And you see this as definitive. But to the person who has experienced this encounter, your interpretation of it seems wholly inadequate. Indeed, it would seem inadequate to anyone who, like me, doesn't share your restricted views about the acquisition of knowledge, even though I would myself be sceptical about the true nature of what has been experienced.
Now, we may have our suspicions that the believer's experiences are explicable in terms of neurosis, hysteria, drugs, or wishful thinking - but we cannot
know. We did not have the experience. An appropriate scepticism is appropriate; but an unqualified dismissal on grounds of 'lack of empirical data' is a retreat into dogma.
Quote from: Franco on September 09, 2009, 10:26:11 AM
Why does it exist?
I don't know. That precisely is the point. And I am not so 'arrogant' as to claim that I do.
Quote from: Elgarian on September 09, 2009, 01:15:11 PM
I really don't want to get involved in another of these pointless exchanges across differing world views, but this statement demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the personal experiences of people who make this claim about 'seeing God'. People who make this claim with conviction are not describing a perception of a lack of something. They're often affirming an experience (sometimes overwhelming) of an unanswerable presence.
Because there are no objective data for you to gather concerning this experience (other than behaviouristic data), and because you (apparently) reject any other way of acquiring knowledge, your view that this perception of God equates to a 'lack of empirical data' satisfies you. And you see this as definitive. But to the person who has experienced this encounter, your interpretation of it seems wholly inadequate. Indeed, it would seem inadequate to anyone who, like me, doesn't share your restricted views about the acquisition of knowledge, even though I would myself be sceptical about the true nature of what has been experienced.
Now, we may have our suspicions that the believer's experiences are explicable in terms of neurosis, hysteria, drugs, or wishful thinking - but we cannot know. We did not have the experience. An appropriate scepticism is appropriate; but an unqualified dismissal on grounds of 'lack of empirical data' is a retreat into dogma.
The misunderstanding is a different one. You and DavidRoss do not want to accept faith for what it is: faith. You want it to be the same as hard knowledge and you are offended that I don't treat the two as one and the same. Sorry, but if they were the same, we wouldn't have the two different concepts. I am simply calling things what they are, and I am not pretending they are something they are not.
It is completely irrelevant what the individual thinks or feels that he/she experiences and why. The point is precisely that this will always remain a subjective experience. It is hence non-transferrable and not verifiable by anyone who does not a priori share that faith. As such it is useless as a form of 'knowledge'. If you cannot prove something to a doubter it isn't knowledge, it's faith, that's why we distinguish the two. Acquisition of knowledge requires constant doubt about the veracity of the knowledge, otherwise it leads to inadequate, incorrect or imprecise and unusable results and general intellectual laziness.
You also severely misunderstand me if you think I that I "[equate] this perception of God [...] to a 'lack of empirical data'. I did nothing of the sort. We humans are hardwired to have faith. It allows us to live with the conflict between our biologically unique intellectual capacity and the monumental uncertainty of our existence. Where we lack hard data, we posit gods and greater forces beyond our ability to prove or deny. And it is good that we do. Human society would not have made it this far with this much brains and no faith. We would have killed ourselves and/or each other because of the unbearable uncertainties of our existence. But that does not mean that a human being cannot live well and live a morally good and fulfilled life without the need for faith, assuming such a person can come to terms with the uncertainties of existence and with his/her limited knowledge of the universe.
Or look at it this way: if we could prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt and document every step of the genesis of our universe or the afterlife with hard data, we wouldn't need faith and religion, would we? That alone should tell you that faith and knowledge are two different things.
The goal of science is to find the simplest explanation for empirical observation. There is no implication that the "true" explanation of purpose is found, just the simplest assumption that fits the known data. It is left open that an even simpler assumption, or one that fits the data better, or fits more data, will likely be found.
Science makes no assault on religion. The fact is that science makes the concept of god increasingly unnecessary. Life itself, which was considered clearly supernatural to the ancients, is now the outcome of the same rules of physics and chemistry that cause your car to rust, make a candle burn, or allow detergent to clean your clothes. These same processes are ocurring in life, but in a manner which is spontaneously organized. We now know that a certain sequence of several billion nucleic acids (our chromosomes) which you can fit on a single DVD disc is sufficient to define the human being, including the formation of the brain and the development of consciousness. That has been shown, nothing outside ordinary chemistry and physics is required the structure once the nucleic acids and the sequence is given. The mind boggling fact has been established, put that well defined set of inhomogeneous polymers in place, and the human being develops. The only thing left to debate is whether that set of biopolymers developed by chance, or whether it was "typed in" by an intelligence.
The origin and purpose of the Universe are beyond science, clearly. Philosophers and theologians are free to speculate on that, but it is a harmless and irrelevant question. The universe existed (so it seems) for ions before the conscious human, and the human will be extinct before the universe evolves discernibly closer to its end, in any case.
QuoteI don't know. That precisely is the point. And I am not so 'arrogant' as to claim that I do.
Another thing you don't know is what motivates me in seeing more rationality believing in a purposeful universe than an accidental one. I can assure you it is not arrogance that brought me to this understanding.
This is a good overview of the social dynamics of religions, which are typically more important than the metaphysical views espoused:
COSTLY SIGNALING THEORY AND RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR
QuoteScholars of religion have described a range of somatic, reproductive, and
psychological benefits that religious communities offer. These benefits include
improved health, survivorship, economic opportunities, sense of
community, psychological well-being, assistance during crises, mating opportunities,
and fertility (see Reynolds and Tanner 1995 for a review). Religion's
ability to promote group solidarity and cooperation underlies its
capacity to offer many of these benefits. Irons (2001; also see Cronk 1994a;
Sosis 2000) suggests that religion can promote intra-group cooperation by
increasing trust among adherents. Various authors have argued that religion
facilitates intra-group cooperation, most notably Durkheim (1995
[1912]); however, Irons's work posits a plausible adaptive explanation for
why it occurs. He argues that in human history the adaptive advantage of
group living was the benefits that individuals attained through intra-group
cooperation such as cooperative hunting, food sharing, defense, and warfare.
However, despite the potential for individual gains through cooperation,
these collective pursuits are often difficult to achieve. Intra-group
cooperation is typically characterized by conditions in which individuals
can maximize their gains by refraining from cooperation when others invest
in the cooperative activity. Thus, although everyone may gain if all
group members invest in the cooperative goal, attaining such large-scale
cooperation is often difficult to achieve without social mechanisms limiting
the potential to free-ride on the efforts of others (Dawes 1980; Olson
1965).
The potential for collective action is confronted with problems of trust
and commitment (Frank 1988; Schelling 1960). When individuals can
guarantee their participation in a cooperative pursuit, intra-group cooperation
is more likely to emerge. However, in most human social interactions
it is impossible to guarantee a commitment to cooperate. Those who interact
can advertise a willingness to cooperate, although this strategy is
not stable. When faced with the conditions of collective action, the incentive
to falsely claim that one will cooperate is especially high since individuals
can achieve their greatest gains by refraining from cooperation
when others cooperate. Therefore, whenever an individual can achieve net
benefits from defection, the only credible signals of cooperative intentions
are those that are "costly-to-fake." If commitment signals are not costly-tofake,
they can easily be imitated by free-riders who do not intend to invest
in the cooperative pursuit. Several researchers (Berman 2000; Cronk 1994a;
Irons 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 2001; Iannaccone 1992, 1994) have suggested
that religious behaviors are costly-to-fake signals of commitment.
Communities that share a religious identity require a host of ritual obligations
and expected behavioral patterns. For example, many populations
require males and females to undergo initiation rites that include beatings,
genital mutilations, exposure to extreme temperatures, tattooing, isolation,
food and water deprivation, consumption of toxic substances, and
death threats (e.g., Tuzin 1982; Whiting et al. 1958; Young 1965). In literate
societies, religious legal codes (e.g., Laws of Manu, Talmud, etc.) outlining
appropriate behavior tend to be formalized and regulate a wide range of
activities, including food consumption, work, charitable commitments,
and dress, as well as defining the frequency and structure of ritual ceremony
and prayer. Although there may be physical or mental health benefits
associated with some ritual practices (see Levin 1994; Reynolds and
Tanner 1995), the significant time, energy, and material costs involved in
imitating such behavior serve as effective deterrents for anyone who does
not accept the teachings of a particular religion. Therefore, religions often
group members. Religious beliefs appear to be well suited to solve collective
action problems by increasing commitment and loyalty to others who
share these beliefs. By increasing trust among group members, religious
groups avoid or minimize costly monitoring mechanisms that are otherwise
necessary to overcome free-rider problems that typically plague communal
pursuits.
By way of example, consider Ensminger's (1997) argument that the
spread of Islam throughout Africa resulted from the economic advantages
of religious conversion. Ensminger claims "Islam was a powerful ideology
with built-in sanctions which contributed to considerable self-enforcement
of contracts. True believers had a non-material interest in holding to the
terms of contracts even if the opportunity presented itself to shirk" (1997:.
Thus, Islam provided a mechanism to overcome the collective action problems
of long-distance commerce. Conversion to Islam increased trust
among traders, which reduced transaction costs, making trade more profitable.
In addition, high levels of trust among Muslim coreligionists allowed
for greater credit to be extended, facilitating further trade expansion.
Ensminger contends that the steep initiation costs of entry into Islam, such
as daily prayer, abstaining from alcohol, fasting during Ramadan, and the
pilgrimage to Mecca, served as the means for establishing a reputation
among traders for trustworthiness. In other words, these rituals and taboos
are costly signals of commitment that served to prevent free-riders from
achieving the benefits of more efficient trade.
Irons's theory may provide insights into the adaptive functions of a
wide range of religious rituals, including subincision rites, mourning practices,
and even prayer. It may also explain a variety of secular rituals (cf.
Sosis and Bressler 2003). For example, army boot camp and fraternity hell
week can both be interpreted as necessary rites that signal commitment to
other group members. Nevertheless, there are several issues in the argument
that need clarification.
Some Predictions of the Model
Irons (2001) has discussed a variety of hypotheses generated by his theory
of religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment. The model presented
here suggests several additional hypotheses and directions for future
research.
Risk of Free-riders. In environments where the risk of potential free-riders
is low, there will be few costly signals. There are at least three conditions
where the risk of potential free-riders is low: groups are isolated and members
do not have the opportunity to join alternative groups, populations
are distinguished by inherent physical characteristics, such as skin color,
and the net benefit offered by a group is low in comparison to the net benefits
offered by alternative groups. Under each of these conditions, groups
are not expected to exhibit costly signals, or at least the level of costly signaling
should be relatively low. Conversely, when the potential benefits of
group membership are high, morphological traits are unrelated to group
composition, and many groups are in close proximity; groups are expected
to exhibit many costly signals. This may explain the frequent observation
that religious diversity in a population increases religious participation
(e.g., Finke and Stark 1988; Finke et al. 1996; Hamberg and Petersson 1994).
For example, Iannaccone (1991) shows that church attendance among
Protestants is positively correlated with religious diversity across a sample
of European countries, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. If
costly signals are a function of the alternative opportunities available for
group members, we may also expect that minority groups, whose members
are at higher risk of being influenced by ideologies and practices of
the majority group (Latane 1997), will exhibit more costly signals than majority
groups.
Early Indoctrination. Early indoctrination will be important for groups
with many costly signals. Early indoctrination minimizes the opportunity
costs perceived by group members, increasing their ability to tolerate
costly constraints on their lives. As a Hutterite man from Montana commented,
"It seems you have to be born with the Hutterite way, to be
brought up from childhood on, to abide by these rules. . . . If you are
brought up like this, you're not used to all these things you see in town"
(Wilson 2000:22). The Talmud, the vast compendium of Jewish law, also
recognizes the importance of early indoctrination in decreasing opportunity
costs. Jews who "return" to traditional Judaism are known as ba'alei
teshuva (literally "owners of return"). In a well-known Talmudic statement
the sages claim, "in the place where a penitent Jew-a ba'al teshuva-
stands, even a perfectly righteous person cannot stand" (Berakhot 34b). The
Rabbis suggest that those who have sinned can achieve a higher level of
spirituality than those who have been righteous all their life. Without having
ever tasted sin, the temptation to transgress is not as great as for those
who have. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, who was raised in an Orthodox household,
states this clearly:
The apparent rationale of the rabbis for holding the ba'al teshuva in such high
esteem was their belief that it is a much greater struggle for a nonreligious
person to become religious and to give up formerly permitted practices, than
it is for a religious person to remain religious. More than a few ba'alei teshuva
(plural of ba'al teshuva) have told me that they desperately miss lobster or
shrimp. As a Jew who was raised in a kosher home, I confess that these foods
have never tempted me (Telushkin 1991:433).
Converts. As a result of the importance of early indoctrination for minimizing
opportunity costs, converts may be trusted less than those who
were raised within a community. This is especially likely amongst groups
that maintain high levels of costly signaling. Converts will perceive higher
opportunity costs than members by birth; thus the willingness to pay the
high cost of membership may be viewed with skepticism about the intentions
of the convert.9 For example, it has been well documented that ba'alei
teshuva who enter the Ultra-Orthodox or haredi community are unlikely to
be welcomed as equals (e.g., Levin 1986). In his book on haredi life David
Landau writes,
Haredism's celebration and absorption of the teshuva movement is not necessarily
matched by a wholehearted acceptance of the individual ba'al or
ba'alat teshuva into the haredi family. The litmus test is marriage, and here
ba'alei teshuva often find their paths blocked by an informal but strongly entrenched
discrimination. . . . The whispered assumption in haredi circles is
that if a haredi-born boy or girl marries a ba'al teshuva, there must be "something
wrong" with him or her: either they are poor, or they have a health disability
. . . (Landau 1993:248-249).
This bias against ba'alei teshuva occurs despite a recurring emphasis in Jewish
liturgy and law on accepting the proselytite as a full member of the
community. It appears that those born into the haredi community recognize
that the costs of membership are too high to be paid without early indoctrination.
The devotion of the ba'alei teshuva is not doubted by the
haredi-born; ironically it is their rationality that seems to be in question
(Levin 1986).
Apostasy. Across religious groups, the costliness of ritual requirements
should be positively correlated with apostasy rates among newcomers. In
other words, groups with the highest levels of costly signaling will also exhibit
the highest rates of defection among their new members, since costly
rituals operate as a sorting mechanism that removes those who are not fully
committed to the group. Indeed, although most cults are successful at attracting
members, it has been estimated that up to 90% of all new members
leave cults in the first several years (Robbins 1988). Data among Shakers
also show that neophytes were about twice as likely to defect as veteran
members (Bainbridge 1984). Despite these losses, groups with costly requirements
probably possess the highest retention rates of members raised
in the community, since these in-born members are likely to have lower potential
success in alternative groups. Groups with significant ritual demands
tend to be closed communities that are isolated from other segments
of society. Thus, their members generally have less knowledge about alternative
groups, face higher socialization costs if they were to join another
group, and have fewer kin and non-kin relations in alternative groups that
could assist in a transition. In addition, as a consequence of the necessary
investment in learning and performing rituals during childhood, comparatively
less time and energy is invested acquiring the skills that are often
important to compete economically in other communities. The remarkable
retention rates among Hutterites, who only lose about 2% of their members
(almost all Hutterites are in-born;10 Peter 1987), appear to support these
claims. In addition to the difficulty in adapting to a radically different way
of life, the formal English education of Hutterite children ends at eighth
grade, making them underqualified for most jobs outside of their colonies.
Van den Berghe and Peter note, "adolescent Hutterites frequently explore
the outside world, especially boys, but nearly all return to the fold"
(1988:527). Among groups less extreme than Hutterites, data are also suggestive.
Catholicism and Judaism in the U.S. have higher retention rates
than liberal Protestant denominations (Roof and McKinney 1987).
It should be noted that the costly signaling theory of ritual does not predict
that in-born members will never leave their community. The model
presented above assumes that as a result of the gains achieved from intragroup
cooperation, religious groups offer higher benefits to their members
than non-religious groups. When this condition is not met, we expect religious
groups to fail or at least face increasing rates of defection. Economic
changes, either economic difficulties within the group or improved economic
conditions in other groups, are likely to have a significant impact on
membership retention rates. For example, Murray (1995a) has documented
how Shaker populations grew during economic recessions and
declined during times of prosperity. Other factors, such as changes in the
sex ratio (in- and out-group), increased religious persecution, and changing
membership skills, are all expected to alter the cost-benefit equation
and impact decisions about whether to remain within a particular group.
It should also be emphasized that the model focuses on individual decision-
making, and thus membership decisions should vary predictably
with individual phenotypic quality. Across religious groups there is wide
variance in the phenotypic traits that are valued and rewarded. These include
such traits as diligence, manual skills, scholarship, spirituality,
courage, and fierceness. Within religious communities, those who are
comparatively deficient in the venerated traits are most likely to defect
and seek opportunities in groups that value other characteristics. For example,
male Ultra-Orthodox Jewish life revolves around continual study
of traditional texts. Scholars are sought after for marriage and attain the
highest prestige within the community. Not surprisingly, within these
communities defection rates appear to be highest among those who are
less intellectually oriented (Landau 1993). Apostasy is also most likely to
occur among individuals with the greatest potential success in alternative
groups. For example, Murray (1995b) found that as new members increased
the illiteracy rate among the Shakers, the defection rate among literate
veteran members increased. He comments that those who departed
"proved to be skilled craftspeople, astute business executives, creative
theologians, and, not least, able leaders" (1995b:231-232).
Proselytization. Proselytization should be less frequent amongst religious
groups that offer greater in-group benefits since proselytization increases
the risk of invasion by free-riders. A glance across the religious landscape
suggests that without refinement, this hypothesis will not be supported.Although
proselytization is absent amongst some groups that engage in high
levels of costly signaling (and presumably offer significant in-group benefits),
such as Jews and Hutterites, for other groups that engage in similar
levels of costly signaling, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, missionary work is a central element of religious practice. Indeed,
the two-year mission required of Mormons can be understood as a costly
signal of commitment to the church. Proselytization is likely to be not only
a function of absolute levels of in-group benefits, but also a function of the
value of increased membership for a group. Proselytizing religions may
face increasing marginal gains as membership increases; in other words,
per capita benefits of group membership may increase as the number of
members grows. A variety of factors could contribute to this economy of
scale, such as increased political clout or lowered costs of purchasing religious
material culture (via increased supply). Increasing benefits with increasing
membership size may characterize The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, which is currently among the fastest growing religions
in the world (Stark 1994). Hutterites, on the other hand, may not be able to
realize these benefits. Indeed, Hutterites divide their colonies when they
reach 100 members since social control is apparently more difficult to maintain
in larger communities (Hostetler 1997). Judaism was not always a nonproselytizing
religion. Jews regularly proselytized prior to the first and
second centuries c.e., and possibly later (Baron 1952:171-183). Eventually,
the benefits that accrued to Jews through increasing membership were
outweighed by the costs, typically death, for missionary activity imposed
by Christian authorities, such as emperors Hadrian, Severus, and Constantine.
Interestingly, in the U.S., where Jews have achieved unprecedented acceptance
into mainstream society, there have been renewed discussions
about proselytizing (Epstein 1994) and currently various Jewish organizations
and congregations actively seek converts.
http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/SosisHutteriteHumanNature.pdf (http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/SosisHutteriteHumanNature.pdf)
Quote from: Elgarian on September 09, 2009, 01:15:11 PM
I really don't want to get involved in another of these pointless exchanges across differing world views, but this statement demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the personal experiences of people who make this claim about 'seeing God'. People who make this claim with conviction are not describing a perception of a lack of something. They're often affirming an experience (sometimes overwhelming) of an unanswerable presence.
Because there are no objective data for you to gather concerning this experience (other than behaviouristic data), and because you (apparently) reject any other way of acquiring knowledge, your view that this perception of God equates to a 'lack of empirical data' satisfies you. And you see this as definitive. But to the person who has experienced this encounter, your interpretation of it seems wholly inadequate. Indeed, it would seem inadequate to anyone who, like me, doesn't share your restricted views about the acquisition of knowledge, even though I would myself be sceptical about the true nature of what has been experienced.
Now, we may have our suspicions that the believer's experiences are explicable in terms of neurosis, hysteria, drugs, or wishful thinking - but we cannot know. We did not have the experience. An appropriate scepticism is appropriate; but an unqualified dismissal on grounds of 'lack of empirical data' is a retreat into dogma.
The problem (at least for me) is that your world view is not that clear. I asked you several questions in my last post in the “Death” thread that you didn’t answer (but you did respond to Ernie’s last posts there... I’m jealous :)) I’ll try again here. When you say “An appropriate skepticism is appropriate”, what would be, according to you, an appropriate skepticism (other than “appropriate”, please) when someone comes and says “I’ve seen God”? And what would be a qualified (i.e., not unqualified) dismissal on grounds of 'lack of empirical data'? Also, on what grounds, other than 'lack of empirical data', would you find acceptable to dismiss such a claim? Give some specific example, please.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 09, 2009, 03:41:34 PM
This is a good overview of the social dynamics of religions, which are typically more important than the metaphysical views espoused:
COSTLY SIGNALING THEORY AND RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR
http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/SosisHutteriteHumanNature.pdf (http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/sosis/publications/SosisHutteriteHumanNature.pdf)
Fascinating article,
bwv 1080, thanks for the link.
Quote from: Franco on September 09, 2009, 03:21:43 PM
Another thing you don't know is what motivates me in seeing more rationality believing in a purposeful universe than an accidental one. I can assure you it is not arrogance that brought me to this understanding.
Yes, but it is not relevant to the discussion due to the highlighted word. You don't actually know either that the universe is indeed purposeful, nor can you prove it. And why does it matter? Who are
you to demand a purpose?
Quote from: O Mensch on September 09, 2009, 07:36:18 PM
Yes, but it is not relevant to the discussion due to the highlighted word. You don't actually know either that the universe is indeed purposeful, nor can you prove it. And why does it matter? Who are you to demand a purpose?
You seem unable to have this discussion without exaggerating my own ideas about this issue.
I am not demanding anything.
I am observing, and deducing what makes most sense to me about what I have observed.
It makes less sense to me that the sophistication of our world has no purpose and was the product of accidents rather than our world does have a purpose and was designed by a Creator. This is not a casual idea for me - it is the determining factor to how I live and every decision I make and everything I think, say and do.
This may not be your understanding and your observations may have brought you to an entirely different conclusions, but there you have it - we are distinct individuals and see things differently.
I am not saying you are wrong, it is simply a fact that what you believe I have already considered and rejected. What you believe does not make sense to me, just as what I believe you have rejected. I am not interested in proving you wrong, and I wish you would stop trying to prove me, and others like me, wrong.
But, you seem to be under the illusion that one can remain on the fence with this idea. But, even if a person says that they "don't know" and "you can never know", our actions belie a decision we have implicitly made.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 05:59:55 AM
I am not saying you are wrong, it is simply a fact that what you believe I have already considered and rejected. What you believe does not make sense to me, just as what I believe you have rejected. I am not interested in proving you wrong, and I wish you would stop trying to prove me, and others like me, wrong.
Eminently sensible remarks; and a clue to how these threads keep chasing their own tails.
Let the other guy think as his conscience dictates. And this goes both ways (to state the obvious, yet again).
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 05:59:55 AM
You seem unable to have this discussion without exaggerating my own ideas about this issue.
I am not demanding anything.
I am observing, and deducing what makes most sense to me about what I have observed.
It makes less sense to me that the sophistication of our world has no purpose and was the product of accidents rather than our world does have a purpose and was designed by a Creator. This is not a casual idea for me - it is the determining factor to how I live and every decision I make and everything I think, say and do.
This may not be your understanding and your observations may have brought you to an entirely different conclusions, but there you have it - we are distinct individuals and see things differently.
I am not saying you are wrong, it is simply a fact that what you believe I have already considered and rejected. What you believe does not make sense to me, just as what I believe you have rejected. I am not interested in proving you wrong, and I wish you would stop trying to prove me, and others like me, wrong.
AND THAT IS FINE! I never criticized that. I am simply distinguishing this kind of belief from hard knowledge. You simply have to be conscious of the fact that you lack hard evidence to corroborate that belief. So there always remains an element of uncertainty, whether you like it or not. If had actual knowledge of the master plan for the universe, you wouldn't need faith in a creator and we wouldn't be having this discussion because you could just present the evidence for all doubters to see.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 05:59:55 AM
But, you seem to be under the illusion that one can remain on the fence with this idea. But, even if a person says that they "don't know" and "you can never know", our actions belie a decision we have implicitly made.
No, not on the fence. You posit a false dilemma: either you believe in a Creator or in chaos. That is not necessarily the choice at all. Positing a creator is but *one* way of dealing with the level of uncertainty we have about our universe. But it is not necessary at all to have either a creator or to even find anything at all to overcome that level of uncertainty.
One can also quite openly embrace that uncertainty. And uncertainty does not necessarily mean chaos. Nor does the absence of faith in a creator and a master plan necessarily lead to amoral behavior; or conversely: moral behavior does not betray an implicit belief in a master plan or creator. What I am saying is that one can say "I don't know" and live with the uncertainty without subscribing to any faith. I know this is hard for someone of faith to understand. To a person of faith, that faith is so central to one's existence that it is almost impossible to imagine how other people can live without it. They seem truly bereft and incomplete. But really, this is all a question of how comfortable you can be with your own ignorance. The more comfortable you can be with that state, the less you need faith.
That is why I asked hyperbolically "who are
you to demand a purpose?" I don't consider myself that important in the big picture of things that
I of all people
must know what the master plan is or that there even is one at all. My view simply derives from the observation that a) all human societies share the most basic moral rules of coexistence regardless of religion, b) these rules are geared towards long term survival of the species, c) the fact that point b) and some elements of social behavior are common to other species as well. It is therefore possible to have successful social entities with any of a variety of faiths or with no faith at all (unless you want to claim that ants, cranes, elephants and other social animals have faith). It is thus possible to devise a moral codex on the basis of rational principles that ensures the survival of the human race without reference to any religious elements. What all that is good for if the planet will eventually be scorched anyway when our sun starts to exponentially expand in size, I don't know and I won't probably ever know. But that doesn't make my life any less meaningful to me or to the many people I touch in my life.
Quote from: O Mensch on September 10, 2009, 07:42:49 AM
AND THAT IS FINE! I never criticized that. I am simply distinguishing this kind of belief from hard knowledge. You simply have to be conscious of the fact that you lack hard evidence to corroborate that belief.
I consider what I observe hard evidence. My conclusions, as well as your conclusions, are not evidence; however, I have concluded that it is more irrational to deny evidence of a Creator, or to assume it is more probable that this level of sophistication is the product of randomness. We don't do this in any other area of our lives, but you seem to think it is more apt to do this concerning the most basic questions.
Quote from: O Mensch on September 10, 2009, 07:42:49 AMNo, not on the fence. You posit a false dilemma: either you believe in a Creator or in chaos.
I have never posited this choice. You would probably do better to limit yourself to describing your own beliefs instead of mine, since you reliably get mine wrong. I already know what I believe, and have expressed it fairly plainly. You, OTOH, keep rephrasing my posts in distorted fashion. Just say what YOU think, stop mangling my beliefs.
QuoteNor does the absence of faith in a creator and a master plan necessarily lead to amoral behavior; or conversely: moral behavior does not betray an implicit belief in a master plan or creator.
It doesn't have to, no, I never said so, but what it actually leads to is someone electing themselves as god and making up their own moral standards. This is a choice of convenience for people who do not wish to change how they live, if an objective set of moral standards tells them to act in ways they find difficult. Aldous Huxley said as much, as to why he and his friends needed to become atheists.
QuoteWhat I am saying is that one can say "I don't know" and live with the uncertainty without subscribing to any faith. I know this is hard for someone of faith to understand.
No, it's not hard to understand. Why do you think people of faith are not as smart as you are? But while you are living with uncertainty you have to make moral choices everyday - these you do, and you can't make a choice and retain your uncertainty. Your choice is made. you acted because it made sense to you, not because you believe you have to answer for your actions to the Creator of youself and your world. There, you see, no uncertainty.
QuoteTo a person of faith, that faith is so central to one's existence that it is almost impossible to imagine how other people can live without it. They seem truly bereft and incomplete. But really, this is all a question of how comfortable you can be with your own ignorance. The more comfortable you can be with that state, the less you need faith.
I'd say, that you know nothing about what people of faith think, feel, or how comfortable they are. But being comfortable does appear to be important to you, which is probably why you prefer making up your own rules.
QuoteThat is why I asked hyperbolically "who are you to demand a purpose?" I don't consider myself that important in the big picture of things that I of all people must know what the master plan is or that there even is one at all. My view simply derives from the observation that a) all human societies share the most basic moral rules of coexistence regardless of religion, b) these rules are geared towards long term survival of the species, c) the fact that point b) and some elements of social behavior are common to other species as well. It is therefore possible to have successful social entities with any of a variety of faiths or with no faith at all (unless you want to claim that ants, cranes, elephants and other social animals have faith). It is thus possible to devise a moral codex on the basis of rational principles that ensures the survival of the human race without reference to any religious elements. What all that is good for if the planet will eventually be scorched anyway when our sun starts to exponentially expand in size, I don't know and I won't probably ever know. But that doesn't make my life any less meaningful to me or to the many people I touch in my life.
Our morality is also not an accident, monotheism has affected our lives so much that you are able to take this morality for granted, and dismiss it as just another accident of creation. There's no "natural morality" we a re born with - we must be taught what is right and wrong. Cultures all over the world have different ideas of morality, in some parts cannibalism is okay, or women are treated as chattel, we in the West think that is wrong. What is best for preserving society might be cruel, killing old people, limited couples to one child, etc. - that idea has no temper with me.
The USA was founded on the idea that a Creator imbued us with rights and no government can take away these rights. What totalitarian governments seek in outlawing religion is to get rid of this idea so the government can tell the population what their rights are. It is only when man accepts an objective standard of behavior outside and above his will that there is any real check on his behavior. All the other systems you describe fail as soon as someone simply decides he wants to do what he wants.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
But while you are living with uncertainty you have to make moral choices everyday - these you do, and you can't make a choice and retain your uncertainty. Your choice is made. you acted because it made sense to you, not because you believe you have to answer for your actions to the Creator of youself and your world. There, you see, no uncertainty.
That really doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying that the act of making a choice makes you certain about it? Huh? ??? Just because you choose to do something, does not mean that you are certain you did the right thing. ::) I must be misreading you, please re-explain your point in a different way. Perhaps with a concrete example?
Quote from: DavidW on September 10, 2009, 08:32:25 AM
That really doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying that the act of making a choice makes you certain about it? Huh? ??? Just because you choose to do something, does not mean that you are certain you did the right thing. ::) I must be misreading you, please re-explain your point in a different way. Perhaps with a concrete example?
I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God. There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.
Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God. Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent. One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
It doesn't have to, no, I never said so, but what it actually leads to is someone electing themselves as god and making up their own moral standards. This is a choice of convenience for people who do not wish to change how they live, if an objective set of moral standards tells them to act in ways they find difficult. Aldous Huxley said as much, as to why he and his friends needed to become atheists.
That is very insulting and shows a complete lack of understanding. The very concept of needing a god to impose morality is simple minded and not appropriate for modern times. You are capable of better. Shame on you.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God. There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.
But you were addressing O Mensch. What exactly are you saying should make him certain that there is/is not a God? You were claiming that he must be certain. Why?
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God. There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.
Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God. Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent. One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.
so if the person does not steal because he is afraid of divine punishment, how is that any different from not stealing from fear of human punishment? Based on your attribution, a selfless atheist would be a higher moral being than any believer who could always be accused of acting out of self interest.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God. Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent. One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.
So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly? That is some weird reverse logic.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
I'm saying that it makes you certain about whether you believe there is a God. There is no uncertainty concerning the motivation of your choices.
Example: someone NEVER steals office supplies because he is taught it is wrong according to God's laws, and he wants to stay on the right side of God. Someone else may not steal office supplies (very often) since if they got caught they could lose their job, this acts as a deterrent. One is certain God exists and acts accordingly, the other doesn't care if God exists, he is acting out of self interest.
Is "fear" the only reason you can come up with to explain office workers not stealing office supplies? I think most people do not steal because it would violate the premise that stealing is wrong.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 10, 2009, 09:24:49 AM
so if the person does not steal because he is afraid of divine punishment, how is that any different from not stealing from fear of human punishment? Based on your attribution, a selfless atheist would be a higher moral being than any believer who could always be accused of acting out of self interest.
I am not concerned with who is "better", I am not a judge. I am also
not saying that
only religious people are good, or that religious laws are the
only rationale that causes people to be good, or that all religious people are good. I am only talking about motivation and how that indicates what you believe about our universe.
If you mostly don't steal because you might lose your job if you got caught and the probability of getting caught goes up the more you steal, but occasionally you do steal when you are sure you won't get caught, this indicates that you do not believe that there is a Creator of the universe who mandates laws against theft, and your violation matters on level divorced from the practical repercussions of your job status.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 10, 2009, 09:30:45 AM
So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly? That is some weird reverse logic.
That's the New Harvard Morality! Everything we choose to do, we do in self-interest!
Quote from: Bulldog on September 10, 2009, 09:33:16 AM
Is "fear" the only reason you can come up with to explain office workers not stealing office supplies? I think most people do not steal because it would violate the premise that stealing is wrong.
Yes, but why is it wrong?
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 10, 2009, 09:30:45 AM
So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly? That is some weird reverse logic.
If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).
In this case to preserve your good standing with your employer, or to not violate your own sense of self-esteem that you are not so petty as to steal office supplies. But, what you are NOT doing is serving God with your choice. And by that non-acknowledgement you cannot turn around and claim you just don't know if God exists or not - because you have decided He doesn't - otherwise, your primary reason to not steal office supplies returns to not wanting to violate a command from God.
ALERT: This is my last comment here. This conversation is reaching the point of diminishing returns, if it has not past it already.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 09:46:36 AM
If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).
Well, that's interesting. Christians take a different view: that in serving others, you are serving God (Jesus spoke about this).
Jesus trumps Dylan, even in a religion-bashing thread ;) :)
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 09:46:36 AM
If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).
In this case to preserve your good standing with your employer, or to not violate your own sense of self-esteem that you are not so petty as to steal office supplies. But, what you are NOT doing is serving God with your choice. And by that non-acknowledgement you cannot turn around and claim you just don't know if God exists or not - because you have decided He doesn't - otherwise, your primary reason to not steal office supplies returns to not wanting to violate a command from God.
you still have not addressed the issue that fear of divine punishment, maintaining one's self perception as a "good Christian/Jew/Muslim (or whatever)" or desire for afterlife rewards do not constitute self-interest
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 09:46:36 AM
If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).
Giving away to charity? Or volunteering in a soup kitchen? An individual can do good without self-serving interests. People who do good things for humanity sometimes are just doing so for the sake of helping others less fortunate.
It doesn't matter whether you have a belief in God or not.
Okay one last post just to deal with lingering posts>
Quoteyou still have not addressed the issue that fear of divine punishment, maintaining one's self perception as a "good Christian/Jew/Muslim (or whatever)" or desire for afterlife rewards do not constitute self-interest
You can serve God out of fear or love. Fear is the more easier to achieve, but love is preferable.
QuoteGiving away to charity? Or volunteering in a soup kitchen? An individual can do good without self-serving interests. People who do good things for humanity sometimes are just doing so for the sake of helping others less fortunate.
It doesn't matter whether you have a belief in God or not.
If you do these things NOT to serve God, then you are doing them for some other reason, e.g. because it makes you feel better about yourself to do GOOD THINGS. Yes, the GOOD THINGS are still being done, which is good. But, again I am not saying that in order to be good you MUST believe in God, I'm only saying that your motivation indicates what you believe.
QuoteWell, that's interesting. Christians take a different view: that in serving others, you are serving God (Jesus spoke about this).
Yes, loving your fellow man is a way to show love for God - men are His creatures after all. In fact, if you say you love God but treat people badly, then it brings into question the first statement.
Okay, see you on other threads.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 10:00:16 AM
If you do these things NOT to serve God, then you are doing them for some other reason, e.g. because it makes you feel better about yourself to do GOOD THINGS. Yes, the GOOD THINGS are still being done, which is good. But, again I am not saying that in order to be good you MUST believe in God, I'm only saying that your motivation indicates what you believe.
You forgot to add: For the benefit of community or for the benefit of society
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 10, 2009, 09:30:45 AM
So, someone who doesn't steal office supplies (even though they may not believe in God), is acting selfishly? That is some weird reverse logic.
Actually, and I'm not taking sides here (and haven't read the post you're replying to) but just making an observation, the statement is
almost true. The person who doesn't steal office supplies is not acting selfishly, but (s)he
is acting in his/her own self-interest. At least for me there is a serious distinction between the two. Self-interest describes the thing you are acting upon; selfish describes your act. So if you rescue the one you love from a burning building, you aren't
acting selfishly, because to be selfish would be to stay away from the fire and grab a Gatorade. But you are acting
in your self-interest, because it's in your self-interest to have the one you love alive. There is nothing inherently BAD about doing something in your self-interest, though of course with such a rationale it is possible to do a lot of bad things. We have an infinitely broad and often contradictory list of self-interests, and being a good person is basically picking which of those interests to entertain. It's in your self-interest to save the girl, but also to not get burned; our moral choices lie in choosing between interests like that.
What I'm getting at is that a self
less act can be within one's
self-interest. Here's another example: if you're really selfish you might not give to charity. It is in your selfish self-interest to keep the money. But it is also in your self-interest to feel good about helping other people. Nobody ever SAYS so, and it is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about. "I'm glad I allowed 10 families to have Christmas dinners." There's nothing inherently bad about that statement. If we all had to help people in ways that didn't make us feel better, the world would stink. ;D I think the truth is that we like to be selfish and keep the money, and we also like to be selfless and help other people. It depends on how we use our self-interest.
So in the office supply scenario, if we make a chart...
REASONS TO STEAL STAPLER.................................REASONS NOT TO STEAL STAPLER
You get a free stapler...................................................You know you got it illegally
You don't have to go to Office Max..............................You're morally opposed to theft
Stick it to the man.......................................................Fellow employees also use it
You could get away with it.....................................................You could get caught
You're poor.........................................................You don't really need it that badly
"I don't want it to be on my conscience" is a concise argument for why not to steal the stapler.
If you don't want to feel guilty, obviously that's not
selfish. But at the same time, feeling guilty is not in your
self-interest either!
At least that's my take. I'm a student and I haven't taken enough philosophy classes, so this post may have been full of crap. Sorry. :)
As an addendum, I agree that in Franco's example there is nothing particularly virtuous about the atheist's non-stapler-stealing stance. "I will not steal the stapler because of fear of getting fired" is indeed mildly selfish in an amoral way. "I will not steal the stapler because I would know I have done wrong" is more my style: motivated by a demand of self-integrity, not fear of losing a job.
Quote from: Brian on September 10, 2009, 10:12:41 AM
As an addendum, I agree that in Franco's example there is nothing particularly virtuous about the atheist's non-stapler-stealing stance. "I will not steal the stapler because of fear of getting fired" is indeed mildly selfish in an amoral way.
Exactly the same as someone saying "I will not steal the stapler because I believe in God, and God will fry my ass if I steal the stapler".
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 10, 2009, 10:15:45 AM
Exactly the same as someone saying "I will not steal the stapler because I believe in God, and God will fry my ass if I steal the stapler".
Exactly. I do not believe that "I will not steal the stapler because God scares me" is morality - indeed, one could say that avoiding divine punishment is self-...oh, you know. ;D ;D
Quote from: Brian on September 10, 2009, 10:09:59 AM
So if you rescue the one you love from a burning building, you aren't acting selfishly, because to be selfish would be to stay away from the fire and grab a Gatorade.
I like this line. :D
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
I consider what I observe hard evidence.
You have observed the creator? Please do tell!
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
however, I have concluded that it is more irrational to deny evidence of a Creator, or to assume it is more probable that this level of sophistication is the product of randomness.
That's a severe misunderstanding of the laws of physics and the process of evolution and natural selection. None of that is random. That does not mean there is necessarily a sentient creator anywhere in that process. I am not claiming randomness either. This is one more of your false dilemmas.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
It doesn't have to, no, I never said so, but what it actually leads to is someone electing themselves as god and making up their own moral standards.
See, that's your problem. Like I said, you have serious trouble understanding how anyone can function without faith, protest as you may that I am getting you wrong. I am not 'electing myself god', nor am U positing my own personal moral standards. It is no coincidence that virtually all of humanity agrees on the basic morals of don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't fcuk your family members, wash your hands. If you posit the survival of the species as the goal and the dignity of the individual as inviolable, the rest follows quite logically without the need for a creator. That is why we can speak of 'universal' human rights and 'universally recognized' moral norms, because these are common to humanity and supported by logical reasoning. You don't need to play God and I certainly didn't come up with these norms myself. I voluntarily submit to these rules, as does most of the rest of humanity,
because they make sense.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
Why do you think people of faith are not as smart as you are?
I never emitted such a stupidity. You seem to feel stigmatized for some reason. I said before: faith is good. There is nothing wrong with it per se. I don't look down upon you for being a person of faith.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
But while you are living with uncertainty you have to make moral choices everyday - these you do, and you can't make a choice and retain your uncertainty. Your choice is made. you acted because it made sense to you, not because you believe you have to answer for your actions to the Creator of youself and your world. There, you see, no uncertainty.
Your point? My moral choices do not imply any bias as to whether or not there is a creator. The choices I make in my humble every day life do not touch those questions about which there is uncertainty. (BTW, just as an aside, there are a great deal of serious moral conundrums where there is no one clear choice, where in fact two moral values are at odds with each other and there is no simple 'good' way of resolving it, faith or no faith.)
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
I'd say, that you know nothing about what people of faith think, feel, or how comfortable they are. But being comfortable does appear to be important to you, which is probably why you prefer making up your own rules.
Again: I am not making up any rules. I don't think not killing people was my idea. Really. It's not that novel of a concept.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
Our morality is also not an accident, monotheism has affected our lives so much that you are able to take this morality for granted, and dismiss it as just another accident of creation.
Except that there are plenty of polytheistic societies that share the same basic moral concepts, so there is nothing really unique about morality derived from monotheism as opposed to morality derived from any other faith system or derived outside of faith from reason alone.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
There's no "natural morality" we a re born with - we must be taught what is right and wrong.
No we don't. We are endowed with a brain. Unlike simple organisms we can conceive of a problem theoretically without having to first experience it. Otherwise we would be incapable of dealing with new situations not foreseen in a book and not taught to us beforehand. There isn't a sound moral rule that cannot be perfectly justified theoretically. You are way too authoritarian. Learning is not a one way street.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
Cultures all over the world have different ideas of morality, in some parts cannibalism is okay, or women are treated as chattel, we in the West think that is wrong. What is best for preserving society might be cruel, killing old people, limited couples to one child, etc. - that idea has no temper with me.
Yes, there are differences resulting from material limitations and the inertia of entrenched customs that have lost their purpose in changed socioeconomic environments, but the basics are the same. And
it is deeply hypocritical to claim cultural superiority as a Christian in criticizing the misogyny or other backwardness of others, when that same misogyny and backwardness was practiced pervasively by Christian cultures in past centuries and when it was justified with the same Christian values with which you now oppose them. It goes to show that good morals do not derive from faith, but need to be constantly questioned as to their purpose, fairness and validity when reality around us keeps changing. Reason does this, faith prefers the status quo.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
The USA was founded on the idea that a Creator imbued us with rights and no government can take away these rights. What totalitarian governments seek in outlawing religion is to get rid of this idea so the government can tell the population what their rights are. It is only when man accepts an objective standard of behavior outside and above his will that there is any real check on his behavior. All the other systems you describe fail as soon as someone simply decides he wants to do what he wants.
There is a lot of contorted logic in this one. The key problem is your insistence that nothing outside of a divine moral order can be 'objective', whatever you may mean by that word. Reality disagrees with you, as people of most faiths and atheists alike follow more or less the same moral code and do so
voluntarily, without coercion but simply out of the recognition that it makes sense and out of love for their fellow human beings. There doesn't seem to be much love in your universe. You seem to believe only in top-down indoctrination with no intellectual agency for the individual.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 09:37:33 AM
I am not concerned with who is "better", I am not a judge. I am also not saying that only religious people are good, or that religious laws are the only rationale that causes people to be good, or that all religious people are good. I am only talking about motivation and how that indicates what you believe about our universe.
Yes, but in doing so you reveal what you think is good and you don't leave any room for any individual reasoning of what is good. Everything in your world comes as top-down indoctrination.
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 09:37:33 AM
If you mostly don't steal because you might lose your job if you got caught and the probability of getting caught goes up the more you steal, but occasionally you do steal when you are sure you won't get caught, this indicates that you do not believe that there is a Creator of the universe who mandates laws against theft, and your violation matters on level divorced from the practical repercussions of your job status.
You (and Brian, actually) seem unfamiliar with the categorical imperative. It has nothing to do with faith BTW and everything to do with reason. How about: I don't steal because if everybody did that nobody would trust each other and we would not function as a society, nobody would produce, nobody would work and nobody would trade. If you don't have a rule that says 'don't steal' your society is toast. It's that simple. No gods required.
Also, how about: I don't steal because I love my fellow humans and don't wish them harm? Is that so incomprehensible of a sentiment to you?
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 09:46:36 AM
If your choices are based on something other than serving God, then yes, you are serving yourself (Bob Dylan sang about this).
You're the king of false dilemmas! Why can't I serve humanity or at least the humans around me that I love?
Quote from: Franco on September 10, 2009, 10:00:16 AM
If you do these things NOT to serve God, then you are doing them for some other reason, e.g. because it makes you feel better about yourself to do GOOD THINGS.
This is inescapable. It is hardwired into us because we are social animals. Either we receive social affirmation or our hormones wreak havoc with us and we become dysfunctional. We *need* to feel like we have a purpose and are well regarded by others. You seem offended by the profanity of that. What is wrong with serving humans?
This post is not religion-bashing, and indeed has basically nothing to do with religion, but I didn't want to clutter the chat thread. I wrote a parodic editorial (http://media.www.ricethresher.org/media/storage/paper1290/news/2009/09/04/Opinion/Intelligent.Design.To.Take.Over.All.Studies-3763373.shtml) for my newspaper, making fun of "Intelligent Design," but some science-supporting fools (http://www.ricethresher.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=59186802-7a2d-41ee-869d-b2998705aab3#a800f362-0924-498f-80e7-828d27903313) thought I was being serious. Oh, to be so young and already misunderstood. :(
;D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 19, 2009, 12:32:58 PMCould we please just have one centralized "I spit on religion, I despise religious people, ridicule of people of faith is necessary" thread?
Too dangerous.
There used to be a tradition of "Christian religion is the spawn of all evil" in leftist Germany from maybe sixties until the 80s/90s. It's a bit silent now, but still good fashion to bash christianism. In case of all other religions, there's only the endless sea of so called tolerance, unfortunately. If you've got something to lose.
Quote from: Brian on September 10, 2009, 07:53:05 PM
This post is not religion-bashing, and indeed has basically nothing to do with religion, but I didn't want to clutter the chat thread. I wrote a parodic editorial (http://media.www.ricethresher.org/media/storage/paper1290/news/2009/09/04/Opinion/Intelligent.Design.To.Take.Over.All.Studies-3763373.shtml) for my newspaper, making fun of "Intelligent Design," but some science-supporting fools (http://www.ricethresher.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=59186802-7a2d-41ee-869d-b2998705aab3#a800f362-0924-498f-80e7-828d27903313) thought I was being serious. Oh, to be so young and already misunderstood. :(
;D
Nicely done.
You did sound eerily like a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool ID-apologist for a paragraph or two, so I can understand why one could be fooled. Provided they read no further, of course.
Quote from: Brian on September 10, 2009, 07:53:05 PM
This post is not religion-bashing, and indeed has basically nothing to do with religion, but I didn't want to clutter the chat thread. I wrote a parodic editorial (http://media.www.ricethresher.org/media/storage/paper1290/news/2009/09/04/Opinion/Intelligent.Design.To.Take.Over.All.Studies-3763373.shtml) for my newspaper, making fun of "Intelligent Design," but some science-supporting fools (http://www.ricethresher.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=59186802-7a2d-41ee-869d-b2998705aab3#a800f362-0924-498f-80e7-828d27903313) thought I was being serious. Oh, to be so young and already misunderstood. :(
;D
Are you surprised? These days you need to include emoticons for anyone to notice irony in print.
::)
(That emoticon post was a wry joke.)
(No, but really.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2009, 03:43:24 AM
(That emoticon post was a wry joke.)
And here I thought it was whole-wheat! :o
Somebody call the Humor $:) !
Multi-grain alert!
Irony is highly overdone. To the point where some people would not be able to express themselves honestly if they tried.
The more you adopt that knowing smirk and sardonic attitude, the closer you become to JdP. Everyone wants to be a Stephen Colbert these days!
Anyway it was a good article though Brian.
Edit: and a gentleman uses candor instead of wag of the finger. Just saying. And I know I need to work on that (had to say that before someone pounces on me).
Quote from: DavidW on September 11, 2009, 04:34:19 AMEveryone wants to be a Stephen Colbert these days!
Ain't it the truth.
....iness.
I'd rather be a composer.
Nothing's more of a bash on Christians than a HD trailer for a LDS movie on Apple's website.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/onegoodman/
Well just throwing it out there, but when I talk to a muslim person about their faith, they are unwilling to accept that their prophet is less than perfect. If I say did he make any mistake in his life, they will say 100% not.
And not to be too judgmental, but how can that guy be considered an ideal human being to be?
and then there is this, but its probably better than the filth on american tv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/7F5kYWceTsI&feature=related
I get the feeling that Karl started this thread in a calculated (possibly cynical) way. He knows full well just how they all turn out.
Then again, maybe these threads contibute to the overall well being of the forum. People come here, blow everything out, and are wonderfully civil in most of the other threads. Maybe Karl guessed this as well ;).
Quote from: AndyD. on September 20, 2009, 09:54:55 AM
I get the feeling that Karl started this thread in a calculated (possibly cynical) way. He knows full well just how they all turn out.
Then again, maybe these threads contibute to the overall well being of the forum. People come here, blow everything out, and are wonderfully civil in most of the other threads. Maybe Karl guessed this as well ;).
Actually Karl started this thread to
minimize the damage these types of threads have. Eric was flooding the diner with literally dozens of anti-religious threads. Karl's reaction is "if we're going to talk about it, can we at least do it on just
one thread?"
Please don't bash on Karl, this is to help restore harmony. Now we have only one thread, instead of half of the front page, and that's really saying something. It really was bad before this. :) I'm sure his feeling would be a bit hurt if someone thought he did this to troll like Eric does. :-\
I would never bash Karl, one of my absolute favorite people here (and/or anywhere). I was just dropping him a sly wink, as he usually knows quite well what he's doing. Because of the catharsis this type of thread induces, I am totally with him on it.
Well venting usually doesn't bring catharsis, it usually just builds up the anger even more. That's why I think these threads are a complete waste of time because they are frustrating to no end. Nothing compelling or interesting is ever said, no pov's changed or bent, and the only accomplishment is an increase in hostility. :-\
Oh well it's fun flaming people! :D
Quote from: DavidW on September 20, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
Well venting usually doesn't bring catharsis, it usually just builds up the anger even more. That's why I think these threads are a complete waste of time because they are frustrating to no end. Nothing compelling or interesting is ever said, no pov's changed or bent, and the only accomplishment is an increase in hostility. :-\
Oh well it's fun flaming people! :D
Agreed, and ;D.
It's like
Ac/Dc after the early '80's: the same song, different lyrics. Not that that's neccessarily a bad thing ;)
Quote from: AndyD. on September 20, 2009, 11:52:29 AM
Agreed, and ;D.
It's like Ac/Dc after the early '80's: the same song, different lyrics. Not that that's neccessarily a bad thing ;)
Ah I only have Highway to Hell and Back in Black. Haven't heard new AC/DC.
Quote from: DavidW on September 20, 2009, 11:56:17 AM
Ah I only have Highway to Hell and Back in Black. Haven't heard new AC/DC.
Try
Flick of the Switch. It's the new religion....
Quote from: AndyD. on September 20, 2009, 12:06:27 PM
Try Flick of the Switch. It's the new religion....
Okey doke bookmarked. :)
Quote from: AndyD. on September 20, 2009, 10:28:07 AM
I would never bash Karl, one of my absolute favorite people here (and/or anywhere).
Most kind, I thank you,
Andryushka!
Quote from: AndyI was just dropping him a sly wink, as he usually knows quite well what he's doing. Because of the catharsis this type of thread induces, I am totally with him on it.
I suppose at times I may even know what I am doing, at unawares, as it were . . . .
8)
Quote from: AndyD. on September 20, 2009, 10:28:07 AMI would never bash Karl, one of my absolute favorite people here (and/or anywhere).
The beard-wearing or the fake one?
Quote from: Wurstwasser on September 21, 2009, 05:48:57 AM
The beard-wearing or the fake one?
I can live with either ;).
Huzzah! Saysit.com is back online!
For Karl:
;D
I wonder if they play Debussy as the service prelude? 0:) ;D
Service I subbed at yesterday opened with:
This is the day we have been given: let us rejoice and be glad in it!
The reformulations they go through to strike God from the ritual (and note the 'safe' passive voice . . . the day is a gift, but don't get nervous about the agent of the giving) . . . why not just announce, Hey! It's a day: let us rejoice and be glad in it!
Poor Florestan, he doesn't know the difference between atheism and nihilism. :'(
Oh, and thanks, Joe, I did appreciate the Chunga's Revenge allusion!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2009, 07:46:47 AM
Oh, and thanks, Joe, I did appreciate the Chunga's Revenge allusion!
And "Appliantology" refers to Joe's Garage.
Quote from: DavidW on September 28, 2009, 07:16:57 AM
Poor Florestan, he doesn't know the difference between atheism and nihilism. :'(
This isn't even nihilism. The selfish gene has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a way of thinking about how evolution works. Ah, well, I suppose we had it coming ...
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 28, 2009, 08:10:24 AM
The selfish gene has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a way of thinking about how evolution works.
With friendly respect to all, it doesn't seem to me possible to claim that this is quite so cut-and-dried. The label
selfish has ethical considerations (even, I should think, among
atheists agnostics). I don't know how it might have been possible to find a genuinely neutral label.
What, you don't believ in ethical consideratons amiong atheists? What's the crossout for?
In any event, "selfish" in Dawkins's lexicon is at most a metaphor, though perhaps and unfortuante one. But I foresee a time when we start blaming him for the housing crisis, foreclsures and the economic collapse, the way Ben Stein blames Darwin for the Holocaust.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 28, 2009, 08:10:24 AM
This isn't even nihilism. The selfish gene has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a way of thinking about how evolution works. Ah, well, I suppose we had it coming ...
Well I was replying to "nothingness is at hand".
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 28, 2009, 09:02:28 AM
What, you don't believ in ethical consideratons amiong atheists? What's the crossout for?
Just a nod to the fact that agnostic's is a factual position (one believes there is reason for doubt) where atheism is a faith-based initiative ("I believe there is no God").
Quote from: JoeIn any event, "selfish" in Dawkins's lexicon is at most a metaphor, though perhaps and unfortuante one.
Well, the adjective
unfortunate might have been invented for Dawkins. I have no doubt
he is selfish to the core ;D 0:) 8)
Quote from: DavidW on September 28, 2009, 09:08:31 AM
Well I was replying to "nothingness is at hand".
It's a day! Let's party! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13121.msg358841.html#msg358841) ;D
The cheese stands alone.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2009, 09:11:32 AMI have no doubt he is selfish to the core ;D 0:) 8)
Another faith-based initiative.
Quote from: DavidW on September 28, 2009, 09:08:31 AM
Well I was replying to "nothingness is at hand".
Is this pushing my buttons again or do you really mean it? :D
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2009, 10:08:05 AM
Is this pushing my buttons again or do you really mean it? :D
Oh I mean it.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 28, 2009, 09:41:27 AM
Another faith-based initiative.
Sure, although I am not much invested in it either way.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2009, 08:20:52 AM
With friendly respect to all, it doesn't seem to me possible to claim that this is quite so cut-and-dried. The label selfish has ethical considerations (even, I should think, among atheists agnostics). I don't know how it might have been possible to find a genuinely neutral label.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2009, 09:11:32 AM
Well, the adjective unfortunate might have been invented for Dawkins. I have no doubt he is selfish to the core ;D 0:) 8)
I'd just like to mention that the word "gene" is more significant than the word "selfish" in this context, because the selfish behavior of genes need not translate into the selfish behavior of individuals, a point Dawkins often stresses. Furthermore, Dawkins often emphasises the importance of altruism, and states that his personal opinion is that the evolutionary process should not be a guide to living an ethical life (he's far, far from being a Social Darwinist).
For example, the selfish gene concept explains, in evolutionary terms, how altruism could have emerged. Sacrificing for your relatives means increasing the probability that your relatives will procreate, thus spreading on the genes they share with you. In the early evolutionary history of humans, any other human we encountered were likely to be a relative, since we lived in small social groups. Therefore, anyone you met shared a significant portion of your genes, so protecting and sacrificing for those nearby would be a trait which could be selected for and subsequently spread. In modern times, it no longer holds true that anyone you'll meet is likely to be a close relative, but the genes for altruism are still there, making our behavior today a fortunate evolutionary misfiring.
So, the selfish gene does not dispense with morality, and it says nothing about how we as individuals should treat each other, not more than any other evolutionary model. I don't think there are any practical ethical considerations at all with the concept of the selfish gene, regardless of your philosophical persuasion.
And, as an addendum, despite whatever controversy Dawkins engenders, he strikes me as a thoroughly moral individual, and not selfish in the slightest. Don't let the angry atheist label confuse you.
Quote from: Daidalos on September 28, 2009, 10:46:55 AM
For example, the selfish gene concept explains, in evolutionary terms, how altruism could have emerged. Sacrificing for your relatives means increasing the probability that your relatives will procreate, thus spreading on the genes they share with you.
For example, how does it explain, in evolutionary terms, sacrificing yourself for people whose procreation does nothing for your own genes?
Quote from: Daidalos on September 28, 2009, 10:46:55 AM
And, as an addendum, despite whatever controversy Dawkins engenders, he strikes me as a thoroughly moral individual, and not selfish in the slightest. Don't let the angry atheist label confuse you.
I'll just quietly point out that I made use of no fewer than three emoticons against that remark.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2009, 10:49:55 AM
For example, how does it explain, in evolutionary terms, sacrificing yourself for people whose procreation does nothing for your own genes?
I did explain that:
Quote from: DaidalosIn modern times, it no longer holds true that anyone you'll meet is likely to be a close relative, but the genes for altruism are still there, making our behavior today a fortunate evolutionary misfiring.
In other words, in the context in which the genes for altruism evolved, altruism was advantageous from the view of the selfish genes, but now, in modern times, when those circumstances no longer apply, the genes are still there. Earlier, the genes treated all as relatives, since it was probable that everyone you met was a relative, something which misfires today. It can be likened to having sexual intercourse using protection, or contraceptives, something which does not benefit the genes, but the root behavior (willingness to engage in the practice) was nonetheless advantageous at the time it was selected for.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2009, 10:51:34 AM
I'll just quietly point out that I made use of no fewer than three emoticons against that remark.
Yeah, I suspected that, but I don't trust emoticons. They're of the devil.
Quote from: Daidalos on September 28, 2009, 10:59:19 AM
Yeah, I suspected that, but I don't trust emoticons. They're of the devil.
;)
Quote from: DavidW on September 28, 2009, 10:39:27 AM
Oh I mean it.
Do you also mean to philosophically discuss a joke, emulated after some contrary-sign jokes? :D
Quote from: MN Dave on September 28, 2009, 09:16:44 AM
The cheese stands alone.
Yea. Though his prophet (Philadelphia Extra-Light) mixeth well with his handmaidens, Whisky and Sweetener.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2009, 12:36:41 PM
Do you also mean to philosophically discuss a joke, emulated after some contrary-sign jokes? :D
You didn't do it to joke, you did it to troll. If you look at the other signs that were posted, you'll see that they are not pointed in message like your sign.
I thought that sign was a followup to Appliantology (and for all I know, nothingness may well be preferable to Appliantology . . . .)
Quote from: DavidW on September 28, 2009, 01:00:32 PM
You didn't do it to joke, you did it to troll.
This is very strange coming from you, a confessed (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,4934.msg357529.html#msg357529) (but apparently unrepenting) troll... ;D
Quote from: DavidW on September 28, 2009, 01:00:32 PM
If you look at the other signs that were posted, you'll see that they are not pointed in message like your sign.
Had you had more knowledge of Christianity, you'd have known what specific enjoinment I was paraphrasing in the last line and thus you'd have understood the joke. :)
Besides, AFAIK, Dawkins doesn't believe in the afterlife, does he? When you die, you just disappear once and for all. Into nothingness, that is.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2009, 10:38:47 PM
Had you had more knowledge of Christianity, you'd have known what specific enjoinment I was paraphrasing in the last line and thus you'd have understood the joke. :)
No I actually I got it. If you can't see past your own nose, then of course you would laugh without seeing that nobody joined in.
QuoteBesides, AFAIK, Dawkins doesn't believe in the afterlife, does he? When you die, you just disappear once and for all. Into nothingness, that is.
So what? Dawkins is not some kind of atheist authority like the pope for Catholicism. Atheism is not an organized religion, get a clue! ::)
I think the rule of thumb is make fun of
yourself for a harmless laugh, not others. And before you do it, make sure it's not more revealing of your own ignorance than it is funny. Consider that next time and you'll save yourself some embarrassment.
Quote from: DavidW on September 29, 2009, 03:45:05 AM
Dawkins is not some kind of atheist authority like the pope for Catholicism. Atheism is not an organized religion, get a clue! ::)
If what you inferred from my post is that I really believe Dawkins is a kind of pope and atheism is an organized religion, then I offer you my sincerest compassion for the grave reading comprehension problems you seem to have.
Quote from: DavidW on September 29, 2009, 03:45:05 AM
I think the rule of thumb is make fun of yourself for a harmless laugh, not others. And before you do it, make sure it's not more revealing of your own ignorance than it is funny. Consider that next time and you'll save yourself some embarrassment.
How's that for a tirade? :D
Anyway, your philosophy is very funny: jokes aimed at religion are to be enjoyed because their authors make fun of themselves, and if one doesn't enjoy them, then he's a humorless bigot; while jokes aimed at atheism are
a priori bad and ignorant...
I pity you. Poor bugger, you just don't get it do you? :-\
Well if you can't learn from your mistakes then you're doomed to repeat then. And next time I won't be so understanding or forgiving.
Quote from: DavidW on September 29, 2009, 05:05:09 AM
I pity you. Poor bugger, you just don't get it do you? :-\
The question is: do you? :D
Well, why cast it in the future? Why not be understanding and forgiving now?
Call me a live-in-the-moment kind of guy . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2009, 05:14:56 AM
Well, why cast it in the future? Why not be understanding and forgiving now?
Call me a live-in-the-moment kind of guy . . . .
Just stopping in to see if people are really still religion-bashing in this thread, and enjoyed this lovely post, Karl. :)
Quote from: Florestan on September 29, 2009, 04:24:10 AM
Anyway, your philosophy is very funny: jokes aimed at religion are to be enjoyed because their authors make fun of themselves, and if one doesn't enjoy them, then he's a humorless bigot; while jokes aimed at atheism are a priori bad and ignorant...
Hmm, I have been known to enjoy a good atheist joke!
Q. How does an atheist girl have her hair done?
A. In big bangs.
I also like a good religious joke!
Jesus, Moses, and a really old man were out playing golf on one beautiful Sunday afternoon. Both Jesus and Moses were doing pretty well, but were lamenting the water hazard that was coming up, as it was a particularly hard hole to hit par on.
Moses went first on this difficult hole. He set his ball, swung, and sent his little golf ball right into the center of the water hazard. Sighing, trying to ignore Jesus's jokes and ribs, he walked over to the water hazard. He stuck the end of his club into the water, mumbled something to the heavens, and miraculously, the water parted. He walked down the now dry water hole, picked up his golf ball, and sat it at the water's edge, waiting to see if Jesus fared any better.
Jesus didn't do much better, however, hitting his ball into the water hazard as well. Moses had a little more respect than Jesus did for his fellow players, and said nothing. Jesus walked up to the water hole, walked across the water, and picked up his ball, which was floating on the surface.
Finally, the old man that had been following them set his golf ball and swung. His ball was heading for the water hazard as well, and Jesus and Moses both snickered. But just as it seemed the water was going to be the golf ball's final destination, a freak wind picked up and the ball hit a tree and rolled to the edge of the water. A frog that had been sitting on a lily pad hopped over and picked up the ball in his mouth. Then an eagle who had been watching the frog for quite some time, thinking Lunch, swooped down and picked up the frog and the golf ball. Momentarily startled, the frog hung onto the ball, but in it's death throes, dropped the ball a mere 5 feet from the flag. A chipmunk darted out from a nearby hole, ran to the ball, and mistaking it for a particularly large black walnut, pushed the golf ball right into the cup, making for a hole in one.
Moses then turned to Jesus and said, "I hate playing golf with your dad."
:D :D :D
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2009, 05:28:04 AM
I also like a good religious joke!
OK: A priest, a rapist and a pedophile walk into a bar. And that was just the first guy.
Or:
Jesus saves!
But Moses invests.
And Moses risked all . . . .
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 29, 2009, 08:06:52 AM
Jesus very little. >:D
(1.) Ah, but you don't know how much Jesus had in savings accounts above the $100,000 guaranteed by the government!
or(2.) Omniscience obliterates risk.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2009, 08:10:39 AM
Omniscience obliterates risk.
But compounds responsibility ... 0:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2009, 08:10:39 AM
(2.) Omniscience obliterates risk.
Actually I think that's insider trading. ;D
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2009, 08:38:37 AM
Actually I think that's insider trading. ;D
It's good to be King. 0:)
Jesus Saves!
(and takes half damage!)
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 29, 2009, 07:29:52 AM
OK: A priest, a rapist and a pedophile walk into a bar. And that was just the first guy.
Or:
Jesus saves!
But Moses invests.
lol!!
More signage:
Off topic
Whether one belongs to an organized religion is personal.
My only complaint is when they tie organized religion into a political agenda. Here in the States, the key issue seems to be abortion. But, in doing so, they seemingly ignore, disproportionally so, things such as the death penalty and war, at times, hypocritically so.
I'm Catholic. Yet, while I am devout in many of their teachings, I don't agree with many of their dictates. For instance, their pronouncements on birth control in the past have left me seriously scratching my head.
In the end, I will use an internal compass on right and wrong and try to follow the spirit of what I consider true Christianity to be, not as contaminated by human nature and its accompanying corruption. I see this as no different than if I were agnostic or an atheist. Most have their sense of right and wrong. Their choices are whether to resign their beliefs to something outside of themselves personally or to do act off of what their believe to be true inside (which in the end comes to be influenced by their environment anyway). They also must decide which route to follow when their inner beliefs are in conflict with the social context in which they live. Finally, they must opt to behave in a manner consistent with their moral beliefs or to selectively ignore them.
Tomo excellent post! It is refreshing to read a post here that shows tolerance and understanding. :)
Thanks, David. :)
Quote from: Tomo on October 03, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
In the end, I will use an internal compass
Well spotted, DavidW. This is indeed a refreshing post, because it puts the responsibility where it belongs - with the individual, and not with a system. All these systems - religion, science, philosophy, the arts, and so on - lead us into disaster when we set any one of them up as supreme. The only agent we have is the subjective self. All we can do is listen to what the various systems tell us, and then choose according to the guidance of the inner compass. To quote Ruskin: we see 'through the glass, darkly. But, except through the glass, nowise.'
Incidentally, and interestingly, this doesn't lead to relativism (a sort of 'anything goes because there are no absolutes' philosophy). Relativism is the only solution to the various fundamentalisms that arise from elevating the importance of one system over others - because when you hand the decisions over to a system, and the systems are in conflict, there's no other way out. Either somebody is wrong, (which no party will concede because the systems have the last word), or nobody is. By contrast, the concept of the 'inner compass' is the natural bedfellow not of relativism, but of pluralism - in other words, the acknowledgement that there may be an absolute truth to be discovered, but that our individual apprehensions of it are imperfect and different.
Quote from: Elgarian on October 03, 2009, 12:40:06 PM
By contrast, the concept of the 'inner compass' is the natural bedfellow not of relativism, but of pluralism - in other words, the acknowledgement that there may be an absolute truth to be discovered, but that our individual apprehensions of it are imperfect and different.
I was on edge reading your entire post until this sentence, when all my fears were set aside. I do not like relativism because it is an "-ism" of emptiness. It doesn't ever say anything, because it does not allow anything to be said. I do not think that is the world we live in, but indeed, I think a lot of people wish it was. It makes sense to me that there is an absolute truth and that the words "right" and "wrong" have a meaning beyond my own beliefs. This truth is indeed beyond our grasp, as you say, but in acknowledging it exists, we must seek to align ourselves with it as best as possible. This is how I have come to understand my own Catholicism. I do believe that the Church contains the truth, in its absolute form, but even the Church admits it cannot tell us exactly what this truth is. (For instance, the Pope's infallibility is negative. He cannot, in specific circumstances, tell us an untruth, but that does not mean he will always be able to tell the truth.) So our jobs are to try to discover and live by what reality is in all of its forms, either natural or supernatural. And many people, in their crippled state of subjectivity, will come to follow this truth in different ways. It would be a mistake to judge them for that. In principle, I think even atheists would agree with me on this.
Quote from: Catison on October 03, 2009, 01:41:52 PM
I was on edge reading your entire post until this sentence, when all my fears were set aside.
It would always be my aim to dispel fear, if I could! (Sorry to have given you an uneasy ride!)
Quote from: Catison on October 03, 2009, 01:41:52 PM
In principle, I think even atheists would agree with me on this.
Indeed. :) And an excellent post. :)
Quote from: Tomo on October 03, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
Whether one belongs to an organized religion is personal.
Like hygiene, do you think? Yes, it is, but what else is it, especially for those religion-bashingists who dwell here? For instance, since it's something you belong to, does that mean it isn't something you have to belong to? What sort of beliefs are you not required to hold? Principally those to which no truth conditions can be attached. That covers a wide field, so we should narrow it down a bit and confine the question to beliefs about what sort of things there are and exclude obvious value beliefs like freedom and the right to bear arms. Those are asserted because they are wanted and not because "we hold these truths to be self evident". That bit of language is an example of the kind of slippage by which confusion is introduced, and value statements are given greater (fictitious) authority by writing them into nature. It isn't good enough to desire our idea of good so we make it a truth about something even if we don't know what it's a truth about (having rejected the perfectly adequate idea that it's a truth about what we want).
So what I think is that when you subtract imported value statements the principle motivation for traditional religion falls into some familiar categories, like tradition and incredulity arguments like "why am I here?". The apparent hopelessness of answering pseudo-questions like the latter empowers the former. You aren't any smarter than the last poor slob who was bedeviled by the unanswerable, so who do you think you are with your unbecoming lack of humility? Interesting thing, this lack of humility which makes its appearance just at the point you begin to question whether human beings really can know with certainty just what sort of disturbingly human-like creature is responsible for all existence, but
not when you don't question it. I would have thought that claiming to know such things shows a lack of humility.
Functionally humility ought properly belong to those who impose strict standards on what they assert as true, and not to those who wish to abolish such standards for their preferences. That looks suspiciously like....arrogance. But while it might be arrogant to proclaim knowledge on one hand what you claim no one can have knowledge of on the other, I have no patience with such arguments when push comes to shove because what is wrong with such claims has nothing to do with the purported defects of the person and everything with the lack of warrant for the assertion, though I'm also tempted to deduct points on the side for the seeming obliviousness involved in this error.
That said, of course I agree with everyone about tolerance, which should never be in doubt, though the equation of sceptical arguments with "bashing" is the obvious intent of at least some of the believers. I'll tolerate them, too.
Quote from: Elgarian on October 03, 2009, 12:40:06 PM
Well spotted, DavidW. This is indeed a refreshing post, because it puts the responsibility where it belongs - with the individual, and not with a system. All these systems - religion, science, philosophy, the arts, and so on - lead us into disaster when we set any one of them up as supreme. The only agent we have is the subjective self. All we can do is listen to what the various systems tell us, and then choose according to the guidance of the inner compass. To quote Ruskin: we see 'through the glass, darkly. But, except through the glass, nowise.'
Incidentally, and interestingly, this doesn't lead to relativism (a sort of 'anything goes because there are no absolutes' philosophy). Relativism is the only solution to the various fundamentalisms that arise from elevating the importance of one system over others - because when you hand the decisions over to a system, and the systems are in conflict, there's no other way out. Either somebody is wrong, (which no party will concede because the systems have the last word), or nobody is. By contrast, the concept of the 'inner compass' is the natural bedfellow not of relativism, but of pluralism - in other words, the acknowledgement that there may be an absolute truth to be discovered, but that our individual apprehensions of it are imperfect and different.
As always the grounds for the arguments are ethical and these are then read back as justifying the arguments against scepticism. This is nonsensical and isn't improved by the high-minded verbiage
Elgarian uses over the low-rent version that atheists are bad therefore incorrect in their arguments. Nobody,
not even arrogant believers is helped or hurt by these ethical sideswipes.
Stripped to its essence,
Elgarian says here that we should not make claims that put anyone in the wrong, an utterly relativistic view where a concept of ethics undermines any notion of truth. As a matter of behavior it has its place at the dinner table perhaps (you don't want to argue every point with everyone all the time, but only some people some of the time). But how, I pretend to wonder, is this a point about what's true? It isn't, of course, and the substitution does not occur because of a heightened sense of morality among believers, I think. As a group I'd say atheists tend to be a bit on the puritanical side, and moral outrage plays a part in their motivations though not, one hopes, in their reasoning. I wouldn't want to replicate
Elgarian and proclaim the superiority of my brand of atheism on the grounds that unlike that scoundrel Dawkins it puts no one in the wrong. And let's have no more nonsense about one system being supreme over others. The operational differences reflect the actual truth value of statements made within them, and the limits placed on them. An individual can evaluate their usefulness and whether that usefulness relates to the truth of a claim or something else.
And what is this supposed to mean?
Quote
Relativism is the only solution to the various fundamentalisms that arise from elevating the importance of one system over others - because when you hand the decisions over to a system, and the systems are in conflict, there's no other way out.
What on earth or elsewhere could this mean? It looks a little like "keep your head down or you'll be tagged as a self-important know-it-all". Why this loose talk about systems instead of pointed criticism about science as a route to knowledge (or as a template for a universal procedure, I would say). Why should I care whether this fellows ox is gored or that one, or whether he's a priest or a scientist or a philosophy professor? It's of no concern to me, and should not concern anyone here, unless you're a relativist (apologist?) and want to put your thumb on the scale for the home town team. The purpose of scientific procedures and methods, as well as the ethical position they embody, is to find a way
not to do that. How odd it is to see it portrayed as though it was merely another disputant instead of the only way of honestly deciding among or against them.
The point is that the use of objective procedures decides things, and when they are decided all the talk about putting one system over another (or Goulds
non-overlapping magisteria) is just hot air. We don't "balance" systems, we decide propositions by reasoning about evidence and let
that tell us what the systems are worth. If believers wish to frame moral propositions in moral terms and make the case for them in that manner we can resolve this argument quickly. But they refuse to do this and make existence claims instead. Or they orate in the Ruskin mode and pronounce poetic and vague moralisms.
Quote from: Catison on October 03, 2009, 01:41:52 PM
I do believe that the Church contains the truth, in its absolute form, but even the Church admits it cannot tell us exactly what this truth is.
Yes, you do believe that. You believe in the power of belief, too. It seems a shame to use a good word like truth in this context, though. Incidentally, "this" truth doesn't look right to me. It suggests that there is a
specific unknown truth they are not telling you. There isn't any such thing. This unspecific though somehow absolute truth has to stay untold or it spoils the mystery. The "egg salad recipe" must remain a secret!* Movie buffs the world over know what I mean.
:)
* It's a secret that there doesn't have to be a recipe! :o
Quote from: Tomo on October 03, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
I'm Catholic ... In the end, I will use an internal compass on right and wrong and try to follow the spirit of what I consider true Christianity to be, not as contaminated by human nature and its accompanying corruption.
And you see no contradiction in these statements? What about the authority of the church you belong to? The hierarchy is very jealous of its authority. It's like smoke and fire: Whenever a letter or a column like this appears in newspaper --- usually it can be paraphased as something like, "I'm Catholic, but I think ..." --- a dozen other people write in saying the author isn't really Catholic and Church positions are not debatable. This isn't a democracy. God's word, as interpreted by the Church, is law. Cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics at all. And so on.
Face it, Tomo. You're a heretic just like me.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 03, 2009, 06:29:28 PM
Face it, Tomo. You're a heretic just like me.
;D Well............................maybe.
Quote from: drogulus on October 03, 2009, 02:46:55 PM
Stripped to its essence, Elgarian says here that we should not make claims that put anyone in the wrong
On the contrary, what I'm saying is that
everyone is in the wrong, to unknown degrees. This complete misunderstanding highlights yet again the utter pointlessness of these interchanges.
QuoteHow odd it is to see it [i.e. the use of scientific procedures] portrayed as though it was merely another disputant instead of the only way of honestly deciding among or against them.
This is exactly what I'd expect anyone to say, who was locked within the confines of a fundamentalist system: yet another declaration of the One True Way.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 03, 2009, 06:29:28 PM
And you see no contradiction in these statements? What about the authority of the church you belong to? The hierarchy is very jealous of its authority. It's like smoke and fire: Whenever a letter or a column like this appears in newspaper --- usually it can be paraphased as something like, "I'm Catholic, but I think ..." --- a dozen other people write in saying the author isn't really Catholic and Church positions are not debatable. This isn't a democracy. God's word, as interpreted by the Church, is law. Cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics at all. And so on.
In my personal experience, I think this argument is very tempting to many Catholics, especially those who enjoy feeling morally superior. I don't, however, think it is necessarily right. The Catholic church is in the business of ideals. Things get fuzzier when the ideals are applied to real situations. It is possible to believe the Church is absolutely correct, and in that sense be Catholic, but also to feel that your particular situation doesn't apply. Yet while I think this is a possibility, it is probably more often used as an excuse to deny Church teachings. But who am I to say? Again, I think the job of a Catholic is to align themselves as fully as possible with the ideals of the Church and to seek a better understanding of how these ideals apply to his/her life. Because ultimately it is about trying to find the best way toward God. A Catholic is lucky, in a sense, to have a 2000 year head start on theology; he needn't feel like he has to do it on his own. ;D
Quote from: Catison on October 03, 2009, 08:59:23 PM
A Catholic is lucky, in a sense, to have a 2000 year head start on theology; he needn't feel like he has to do it on his own. ;D
Yeah, but if he does try to do it on his own, watch out. ;)
Quote from: Tomo on October 03, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
In the end, I will use an internal compass on right and wrong and try to follow the spirit of what I consider true Christianity to be, not as contaminated by human nature and its accompanying corruption.
You do realize that you, having a human nature yourself, contaminate "what you consider true Christianity" with your accompanying corruption, don't you? :)
I would like to thank Tomo, Elgarian, Catison, DavidW, drogulus and Joe Barron for a page of eloquent, reasonable, engaging, and most of all friendly-spirited posts in this discussion. I am very glad to see that the "Religion-Bashing" thread has been transformed into a respectful dialogue. Apart from everything else, it makes for great reading.
Athiests rule, Catholics drool (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=atheists&st=cse)
In a recent Pew survey, self-identified atheistd scores better than any subgroup on a quiz of religious knowledge. Jewish people scores almost as well, and Catholics ranked near the bottom. (Ah, my people!) At first, I thought this might be function of education — that skeptics and and Jews would tend to be better educated than the general population — but according to the times article, the difference obtains even after that factor is controlled for.
So the question is, Why? I've always been interested in religion, largely, I think, because I was devout as a child and became anti-devout later on. (And I aced the quiz.) I can't speak for all nonbelievers, but I think our relatively elevated religious awareness may be due to the fact that we are constantly called upon to defend ourselves. Being an atheist is like being a vegetarian: The first thing anyone does when you declare yourself is to try to talk you out of it. Keeping up with the competition becomes a good survival strategy. We also take the position that no one religion can claim a monopoly on truth — as opposed to the Catholic hierarchy, which does claim such a monopoly — and learning about other religions helps one make the case.
Catholics not only new less about other religions, they knew less about their own than other groups. And in all fairness, though, I should point out that there's a lot to know about Catholicism. Dogmas have been collecting for thousands of years, and Catholics aren't sending their kids to parochial schools in the same numbers that they used to. That's where we had all that stuff drilled into us. Who would suspect, for example, that Cosmas and Damian are the patron saints of doctors, pharmacists and hairdressers? Transubstantiation, anyone? Pop quiz: Explain the distinction between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
On a side note, I have to say I rather resented the reporter asking the head of American Atheists (O'Hare's group) for a quote. I suppose they have to go to the most obvious organization, much as they automatically go to Catholic bishops for anything having to do with religion, but for the record, these people do not speak for me. They always struck me as a too angry, and true to form, the guy said something predictably snarky. I've read the Bible. There are parts I like. Here, to close, is my favorite verse, Isaiah 1:13-17 (NRSV):
Trample my courts no more;
bringing offerings is futile;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—
I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.
Your new moons and your appointed festivals
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
When you stretch out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.
Joe, I'm not surprised by the survey. Probably very few people are.
Quote from: Elgarian on October 03, 2009, 08:57:28 PM
On the contrary, what I'm saying is that everyone is in the wrong, to unknown degrees. This complete misunderstanding highlights yet again the utter pointlessness of these interchanges.
This is exactly what I'd expect anyone to say, who was locked within the confines of a fundamentalist system: yet another declaration of the One True Way.
You can't make an argument based on the unknown degree everyone is wrong. After all, you might be wrong to an unknown degree. This is the trap Rorty fell into when he said "no such thing as truth". Did he mean that "no such thing as truth" wasn't true?
Nor is the argument worthless. It's decided by what can be shown to be true and what is portrayed as true that can't be shown. Unknowns are not allowed to be treated as honorary truths just because everyone is wrong about unknown somethings. Besides, if we are all wrong about the unknown then believers are wrong, period. And sceptics who consistently maintain that you can't make existence claims about the unknown are not only right by my standard, it looks like they are right by yours as well. We are better at dealing with unknowns than believers, making no claims that we aren't in a position to make. We are therefore, in the proper sense, more humble. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
The best thing to do about the unknown is explore it. You start by asking questions, not proclaiming beliefs.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2009, 10:29:13 AM
I would like to thank Tomo, Elgarian, Catison, DavidW, drogulus and Joe Barron for a page of eloquent, reasonable, engaging, and most of all friendly-spirited posts in this discussion. I am very glad to see that the "Religion-Bashing" thread has been transformed into a respectful dialogue. Apart from everything else, it makes for great reading.
There's nothing unusual about that.
Quote from: Elgarian on October 03, 2009, 08:57:28 PM
On the contrary, what I'm saying is that everyone is in the wrong, to unknown degrees. This complete misunderstanding highlights yet again the utter pointlessness of these interchanges.
This is exactly what I'd expect anyone to say, who was locked within the confines of a fundamentalist system: yet another declaration of the One True Way.
Science is not fundamentalist, nor are philosophical stances that see science procedures as the way questions about the world are answered. Fundamentalism is not the belief that your conclusion is correct, it's a particular way of arriving at conclusions, according to whether they do or don't conflict with a supposedly inerrant text or doctrine. The procedures I endorse could hardly be more different. I know it's common to see references to "atheist fundamentalists" but this is wrong. Atheists do not extend belief to unknowns as though a private channel to truth about what can't be known existed. They're operationally anti-fundamentalist. Religion, at least the kind familiar to us here, is about proclaiming as truth what can't be known. It's the procedures that make a system fundamentalist or not, not your opinion of the conclusion.
This Catholic sure is feeling the love ; )Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 12:38:03 PM
. . . On a side note, I have to say I rather resented the reporter asking the head of American Atheists (O'Hare's group) for a quote. I suppose they have to go to the most obvious organization, much as they automatically go to Catholic bishops for anything having to do with religion, but for the record, these people do not speak for me. They always struck me as a too angry, and true to form, the guy said something predictably snarky.
Thank you for saying that; if I had made the remark, some might dismiss it as coming from an interested party. Such a pity that atheism seems so seldom to make its adherents rich in the virtue of kindness.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 02:55:22 PMSuch a pity that atheism seems so seldom to make its adherents rich in the virtue of kindness.
And you think it is not insulting to make this sort of blanket statement about "atheists" based on the behavior of a fringe group like "American Atheists"?
Quote from: Scarpia on September 30, 2010, 02:57:43 PM
And you think it is not insulting to make this sort of blanket statement about "atheists" based on the behavior of a fringe group like "American Atheists"?
I am making an observation of the people I have had experience with, not a blanket statement.
Is that permitted? I trust it does not personally insult you, Scarps, if I point out that I have known a great many atheists of unpardonably nasty character.
In fact, one individual I was thinking of in particular I was following on Twitter (he is a well known entertainer). Once the Pope was visiting England, this entertainer (who probably had better things to do) tweeted an inordinate amount of twaddle regarding the Pope. And I deceased from following him, wishing that he would instead do the things he is good at. I am sure he rationalizes his nastiness as "necessary" and "worthwhile" in his tireless Crusade against religion. And against that consideration, too, I realized that he wasn't all that edifying an entertainer, even when he was about his proper business.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 02:55:22 PM
Such a pity that atheism seems so seldom to make its adherents rich in the virtue of kindness.
Luckily, I have personally met not a single one of those atheists. Those that I know (but I will modestly exclude myself) have been on the whole no kinder or ruder than any other group of people - that is to say, they have all been at minimum humane and at maximum capable of great love and affection.
In this spirit, it is worth remembering that for every O'Hair there is an Asimov, for every Dawkins an Ingmar Bergman, for every Hitchens a Bill Gates, for every Bill Maher an Arundhati Roy.
Although I suppose atheist Pierre Boulez
is known for his "cold" interpretations... ;)
Karl, atheists such as myself often give up on Christianity because it fails to live up to the whole love-your-neighbor and love-your-enemies standard. I, personally, refuse to belong to any organization, like a church or a political party, that possesses a right wing. (Ever wonder why most of our conservative bloviators are pissed off Irish Catholics? The world seems to have really let them down.) So it's disappointing to find someone who believes the many of the same things I do sounding so uncharitable. On the other hand, I'm always up for a little snark if it's genuinely witty. Bill Maher once showed a film clip of a boy who said he became born again at age five because he was "looking for something in his life." The kid, said, Maher, was up to five packs of Oreos a day.
Then there's George Carlin's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM) take on the ten commandments.
Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my really favorite Bible verse is Deut. 23:1: No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.
I try to apply it to some aspect of my life every day.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:10:14 PM
In fact, one individual I was thinking of in particular I was following on Twitter (he is a well known entertainer). Once the Pope was visiting England, this entertainer (who probably had better things to do) tweeted an inordinate amount of twaddle regarding the Pope. And I deceased from following him, wishing that he would instead do the things he is good at. I am sure he rationalizes his nastiness as "necessary" and "worthwhile" in his tireless Crusade against religion. And against that consideration, too, I realized that he wasn't all that edifying an entertainer, even when he was about his proper business.
I moved to England on the same day the Pope arrived. To be frank, it appeared to me that over half of the population of London responded to the Pope in the same way as your entertainer. The nation's reaction, as an almost collective whole, was, "This guy thinks he's important. But who cares?"
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 03:15:28 PM
Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my really favorite Bible verse is Deut. 23:1: No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.
I try to apply it to some aspect of my life every day.
;D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:10:14 PM
In fact, one individual I was thinking of in particular I was following on Twitter (he is a well known entertainer). Once the Pope was visiting England, this entertainer (who probably had better things to do) tweeted an inordinate amount of twaddle regarding the Pope. And I deceased from following him, wishing that he would instead do the things he is good at. I am sure he rationalizes his nastiness as "necessary" and "worthwhile" in his tireless Crusade against religion. And against that consideration, too, I realized that he wasn't all that edifying an entertainer, even when he was about his proper business.
Do you suppose that poor fellow is conscious enough to recognize that there's not a gnat's whisker of difference between himself and the most coarsely bigoted fundamentalist redneck of his imagination?
Quote from: Brian on September 30, 2010, 03:15:03 PM
Luckily, I have personally met not a single one of those atheists.
Not even virtually? I do consider interaction via the InterNet a form of personal experience.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 30, 2010, 03:24:50 PM
Do you suppose that poor fellow is conscious enough to recognize that there's not a gnat's whisker of difference between himself and the most coarsely bigoted fundamentalist redneck of his imagination?
No, I don't suppose so. I should guess that he actually considers himself as far above that redneck, as the sun is above the tarry macadam.
More theological musings from George (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo&NR=1):
War
disease
death
destruction
hunger
filth
poverty
torture
crime
corruption
and the Ice Capades
... results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being.
I must say I am not impressed with Benedict. One does not rise above criticism simply because he has been elected pope.
None of this has anything to do with the survey, which is what I'd like your reaction to.
Quote from: Brian on September 30, 2010, 03:18:23 PM
I moved to England on the same day the Pope arrived. To be frank, it appeared to me that over half of the population of London responded to the Pope in the same way as your entertainer. The nation's reaction, as an almost collective whole, was, "This guy thinks he's important. But who cares?"
Chances are that many of the Catholics cared; though of course they are a minority in England, so perhaps we should not consider their opinion.
And now, you see, "This guy thinks he's important." There's some uncharitable transference going on there, would you not agree? The man is the spiritual representative of a great many people. My impression is that, actually, he is possessed of a humility unusual for that small class of human beings who represent such large groups of people (heads of state, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies).
And I have spared this thread the specific nasty remarks he made, or, friend Brian, you would not so blithely speculate that pretty much all of the UK thought the same.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 03:30:36 PM
I must say I am not impressed with Benedict. One does not rise above criticism simply because he has been elected pope.
I am reasonably impressed with him. I suppose those who feel they have a right to criticize the Pope do not much concern themselves with whether they are fair in their criticism.
You see, that's the problem. What need does an atheist have, to be fair? There's no moral imperative there.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:34:57 PMYou see, that's the problem. What need does an atheist have, to be fair? There's no moral imperative there.
So then — what? One can have no moral or ethical standards without recourse to some kind of cosmic enforcer? Come on, Karl. You know better than that.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 03:15:28 PM
Karl, atheists such as myself often give up on Christianity because it fails to live up to the whole love-your-neighbor and love-your-enemies standard.
There is an element of fairness in there. But you see, there are Christians who strive to live by that standard. Many whose moral successes there are an inspiration to the world. Now, if the idea is, that Christianity can only be true (or worthwhile) if all Christians succeed, at all times, in the command to love one's neighbor and to love one's enemies as oneself, that's really a mug's game, isn't it? The test is designed for immediate failure. The commands are hard. And every Christian fails. The ones who take their faith seriously, continue trying. And over a lifetime, their souls convert. Your theoretical test, Joe, seems to fancy that since Jesus commanded it, there ought somehow to be immediate and entire compliance, or it means that Jesus is a fraud. It's an interesting opinion, but not, I don't believe, any very reasonable (or charitable) one.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 03:40:25 PM
So then — what? One can have no moral or ethical standards without recourse to some kind of cosmic enforcer? Come on, Karl. You know better than that.
Actually my point is much more practical, Joe. So many atheists whom I have seen in action, are fair.
When it suits them.
Where many Christians I have known embrace the strength of a moral stand, even when quite inconvenient to them personally. You are right — perfectly right — Joe, to criticize Christians for failing to obey those terrible imperatives from Christ. (Not right to conclude that Christianity means nothing, because every man jack of them fails, and, generally, fails repeatedly.) One cannot really chide an atheist for the same failings. It isn't a command to him. It's maybe a good idea, maybe not, depending on the situation.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:00:32 PM
I am making an observation of the people I have had experience with, not a blanket statement.
Is that permitted?
I trust it does not personally insult you, Scarps, if I point out that I have known a great many atheists of unpardonably nasty character.
Why not respond to the subject instead of insulting the people you disagree with? I have an idea that you could save your attacks for the ideas that atheists advance in the way that atheists attack the ideas that you advance, and leave the terribly interesting subject of who's more nasty for a "Who's nasty?" thread.
I'm sure that thread would be loads of fun. I, for instance, have always wondered who the nasty people were, and would welcome a spirited discussion of this timely issue (all the nastiness in the world, who's to blame, etc.).
This is the "Religion-Bashing" thread, which I interpret as a discussion about what is or isn't legitimate discussion and what is merely insult concerning religion. I take the position that you can't insult ideas no matter how high on stilts you raise them. Gods, therefore, are fair game, and I reject the idea that insulting "your" god insults you as tactical only. I can't prove this doesn't insult you, just as you can't prove I'm not insulted by the thesis that people who don't think gods are real are nasty. Who cares if I'm insulted or not? It makes no difference. Once the petty bickering subsides the intelligent posts will resume and your complaints will be for naught.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 03:40:25 PM
So then — what? One can have no moral or ethical standards without recourse to some kind of cosmic enforcer? Come on, Karl. You know better than that.
Does your silence on the question mean that you agree that a critic of the Pope is not morally obliged to be fair in his criticism? ; )
Well, Karl, you open up many interesting and important points, but I would only say that I don't find Jesus' commandments all that "terrible." I find most of the ethical issues he dealt with were pretty low-grade (he just gave up on political oppression), and some of the commands, like making no distinction between, say, wanting to commit adultery and actually doing it, somewhat questionable. Every religion subscribes to some variant of the golden rule. There's no real innovation here. In short, for the son of God, he's a bit of a disappointment.
And we don't simply judge Christians for failing to live up to an ideal: we judge Christians for failing to live up to the ideal while they're busy judging the rest of us for failing to live up to the ideal. The Inquisitors in the Age of Faith cast more doubt on the ideal than nonbelievers, because they believe in the ideal more firmly than we do. The torturers of the past can't be forgiven for lacking the modern, "humane" sensibility, because in the Christian version of things, the ideal was there from the beginning. There is no room for improvement, because, if God's word is eternal, the standard doesn't change We've had nothing to learn in the past 500 years. But, of course, the standard does change. Modern, liberal Christians don't want to believe that God is as awful as he was portrayed in the Age of Faith, and as some modern fundamentalists still think he is. The question is, why not? What is it about the modern world that makes us want to believe in a kinder, gentler deity? I would lay the credit in large measure to the atheist critique, which has said all along that God isn't everything he's cracked up to be. You need us, Karl. Without us, your increasingly humane ideal would have been a lot harder to develop.
Quote from: Brian on September 30, 2010, 03:15:03 PM
In this spirit, it is worth remembering that for every O'Hair there is an Asimov, for every Dawkins an Ingmar Bergman, for every Hitchens a Bill Gates, for every Bill Maher an Arundhati Roy.
Although I suppose atheist Pierre Boulez is known for his "cold" interpretations... ;)
Is it "permitted" to point out that Dawkins has always maintained his great respect and admiration for religious people of his acquaintance? Atheist hardasses like Dawkins and Hitchens are admired greatly and have considerable influence among thoughtful believers (of which there are many). I'm impressed by the degree that the "New Atheists" have found their mark. The submissive "atheist but..." position is defeatist. We will not be liked any better if we don't stand up for ourselves.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Karl, you open up many interesting and important points, but I would only say that I don't find Jesus' commandments all that "terrible."
So, no personal difficulty loving your neighbors and your enemies? I admre you, Joe, unreservedly. Those were the commands we were talking about, and in terms of striving to apply them in all things, most Christians find them tough going. That is the terror of which I spoke; the ease of failing to live up to those.
I know, you changed the subject in order to push along to the scornful "for a son of God he's a disappointment." Thank you for justifying the thread's title.
Again, how shall I chide you for failing to love your enemy, for the ease with which you pour derision on those who think differently, but especially Christians in general and Catholics in particular? The command needn't mean anything to you. Your quip about the Divine Enforcer notwithstanding, you are illustating my point with alacrity.
I note continued non-answer to this (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13121.msg453015.html#msg453015). But of course, you are not obliged to answer.
Of course the larger point is this very matter of kindness, of how one behaves to one's neighbor, particularly if one's neighbor thinks rather differently.
So let's consider that survey, which shows that atheists know more about religion than Christians. Most people of faith don't consider the knowledge the important thing. Does the atheist's knowledge make him a kind, charitable person? Some atheists I know are very kind people indeed, but that is not a function of their knowledge. And I trust that many of us have known very kind people, whose knowledge perhaps was not all that extensive.
Please observe that I say nothing against knowledge; heck, even I have been known to use some, in unguarded moments. But as a rule, the point of religion is how one behaves, which obviously is not any specific function of the knowledge whereof one stands possessed.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 04:20:05 PM
So, no personal difficulty loving your neighbors and your enemies? I admre you, Joe, unreservedly. Those were the commands we were talking about, and in terms of striving to apply them in all things, most Christians find them tough going. That is the terror of which I spoke; the ease of failing to live up to those.
But come on, Karl: This is all petty interpersonal stuff. We all know we should try to get along, because it makes our lives more comfortable and less violent. Problem is, you won't find any advice in the New Testament on exactly how to go about it, except for a few obvious parables. You give yourself much too much credit for struggling with issues that everyone, believer or not, has to deal with every day. Do you really need Jesus to tell you shouldn't rob someone at gunpoint or beat up your wife? Did the Hebrews think adultery and killing were all right
before Moses came down from Sinai with the commandments under his arm? Most people want to be good. The only difference between Christians and the rest of us is that Christians expect to be rewarded for it.
Joe, puhleeze don't blame liberal Christianity on us. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
My problem with a kinder, gently deity is that making it even more like what you want (or what you want) is not the needed improvement from a philosophical standpoint. A nasty god may be unappetizing but a nicer version isn't more true. My quarrel is with a certain strand of atheism that thinks good falsehoods are preferable to bad ones. I disagree, even though I think Christians that don't burn me at the stake are better than those who do, I don't see how that would make their ideas any truer. I do value good treatment over bad, but separately from the issue of what nonsensical beliefs are held, even though the nature of these nonsensical beliefs is implicated as the reason for the bad treatment. Politically we require that people behave with minimal decency without regard to their horrible beliefs. That's the correct way to go, I think. If we wait for people to become cognitively excellent to behave well we might have to wait a long time.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 04:36:44 PM
Most people of faith don't consider the knowledge the important thing. Does the atheist's knowledge make him a kind, charitable person?
I disagree. Christianity is not just a system of ethics. It is primarily a system of belief, which has specific things to say about the nature of Christ, God, creation and the afterlife. Take all that away, and you're left with a kind of reform Judaism or Unitarianism, both of which have their shares of kind, charitable people. And if you're going to subscribe to a dogma, it would help to know what the dogmas are.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 04:37:39 PM
But come on, Karl: This is all petty interpersonal stuff. We all know we should try to get along, because it makes our lives more comfortable and less violent. Problem is, you won't find any advice in the New Testament on exactly how to go about it, except for a few obvious parables. You give yourself much too much credit for struggling with issues . . . .
I'm sorry, Joe, we were talking generally, I believed. Why this ad hominem? To deflect the discussion, right?
Thank you for conceding that you wish to derail the discussion with personal remark. I can see where it is more convenient. It is the small acts between people which are the atoms of which the world is formed, Joe. It is not petty. QuoteThe only difference between Christians and the rest of us is that Christians expect to be rewarded for it.
Thanks for another simplistic, scornful caricature, Joe. Such a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Quote from: drogulus on September 30, 2010, 04:41:02 PM
Joe, puhleeze don't blame liberal Christianity on us. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
;D Yeah, but you know what I mean. Theology is, primarily a defensive maneuver, a response to criticism.
Treating the other fellow with respect: it's all so . . . unimportant, isn't it?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 04:47:05 PM
Treating the other fellow with respect: it's all so . . . unimportant, isn't it?
Come on. You know I love you, guy.
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 04:44:38 PM
;D Yeah, but you know what I mean. Theology is, primarily a defensive maneuver, a response to criticism.
You don't know how happy it makes me to be understood! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
Of course you're right. It's not to convince believers, it's to convince believers that unbelievers can be answered. When believers do get a whiff of what these guys say they recognize it for the crypto-atheism it is. Who was it that said that god was so
supercalifrabjous that he didn't need to exist?
Yeah, Baby! And Karen Armstrong actually said that god didn't exist 'cause it was "existence itself"! I'm in awe!
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 03:28:53 PM
War
disease
death
destruction
hunger
filth
poverty
torture
crime
corruption
and the Ice Capades
... results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being.
This looks like the resume of human beings acting according to the dictates of short-sighted selfishness. You're right: it has nothing whatsoever to do with God.
I'm wondering if you're all talking about the new survey (...survey says!) that says that (American) atheists and so forth know more Bible than Christians?
There's a "rock n roll" church around here (there's a few, as a matter of fact,... not like Pensacola, but,...) where a lot of 12 steppers go for religion,... because,... well, gosh, they're just not judgmental there.
I've had a second career getting kicked out of churches (by the collar) when I'd go up top the pastor afterwards and, "Well, gosh pastor, you know, you said A, B, and C, and gosh, well, look right here in the book it says the opposite of what you just said,..."
and then comes the "I have a Degree in Divinity, and,..." and, they just lost me at this degree in divinity (from some cemetar,...I mean, semen-ary). For the most part, it seems these guys have just had their testicles chopped off, but, in America these days, that's not uncommon (have you noticed the younger generation of men speaking in teste-less tones?).
I went to another run of the mill Methodist church for over a year and didn't hear the word sin once. Once again, it sounded like a lot of 12 step feel good blah.
...and,...and,...what's up with all the lesbian "pastors"? Every church has a woman at the head now,...more often than not solid like a linebacker and with the typical over 50 dyke cut.
oh, and don't worry about churches believing that Authority comes from,... well, gosh, where does Authority in Churchianity, oops, I'm mean Christianity, come from???
It certainly can't come from the Book.
You know who it comes from? It comes from the endless Bible Committees that have been set up by the unbelieving world (The Jesus Seminar) to tell us silly, stupid, know nothings what to believe.
My mom goes to church because it makes her feel good. She by no means can declare that Jesus literally, physically ROSE FROM THE DEAD (what else are you supposed to believe?). She really can't seem to be bothered with Doctrine, as long as she can drive, and help, the little old ladies of the congregation and community.
"I"m a good person," always seems to win out in any one individual's assessment of themselves. Yup, that's what everyone thinks of themselves, pretty much,...no?
What's really sad is that the Frozen Chosen (Churchianity in America Today) has been so totally co-oped by Mossad that it's getting about time to do something about this total twisting of Scripture by the likes of John Hagee (I thought gluttony was a sin??). That so called Christians believe in anyone who has a congregation of over 40 souls is beyond me.
Let's not confuse First Century Belief in a Risen Saviour with what passes for faith here in Babylon Amerikkka.
Perhaps America IS in the Scripture, in Jeremiah, where it is said that "the hindermost of nations shall be a desolation."
When I stand in line at the stores, and see the human wreckage that passes itself for civilization, it truly makes me have to check myself. brrrrrr
I am by no means related to Bonzo!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:00:32 PM
I am making an observation of the people I have had experience with, not a blanket statement.
Is that permitted?
I trust it does not personally insult you, Scarps, if I point out that I have known a great many atheists of unpardonably nasty character.
Karl:
Give a little thought to how many atheists you might have met in your life who said nothing about religion. I'm confident that most atheists not only don't talk about religion; they don't think about it at all.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:32:33 PM
Chances are that many of the Catholics cared; though of course they are a minority in England, so perhaps we should not consider their opinion.
And now, you see, "This guy thinks he's important." There's some uncharitable transference going on there, would you not agree? The man is the spiritual representative of a great many people. My impression is that, actually, he is possessed of a humility unusual for that small class of human beings who represent such large groups of people (heads of state, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies).
And I have spared this thread the specific nasty remarks he made, or, friend Brian, you would not so blithely speculate that pretty much all of the UK thought the same.
It's quite true that as I have no idea what the fellow said, I have no idea if the UK agreed. The general reaction was not positive, however, except for a spread in
Guardian interviewing various Catholics who were blessed by him at his stops. That did make for an engaging read.
I'm afraid most Britons did not infer "humility" from the sum of money paid to sponsor his visit, or the failure to revise Canon Law to require bishops to report rapist-priests to the police.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 03:47:55 PM
Actually my point is much more practical, Joe. So many atheists whom I have seen in action, are fair.
When it suits them.
Where many Christians I have known embrace the strength of a moral stand, even when quite inconvenient to them personally.
As with the argument that atheists aren't kind, this is so wrong but so unprovable that all I can say which will register clearly is, that it makes me very sad to read.
Quote from: drogulus on September 30, 2010, 04:18:31 PM
Is it "permitted" to point out that Dawkins has always maintained his great respect and admiration for religious people of his acquaintance?
Certainly; he is after all the spiritual leader of "Atheists for Jesus"!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 04:20:05 PM
Again, how shall I chide you for failing to love your enemy, for the ease with which you pour derision on those who think differently, but especially Christians in general and Catholics in particular? The command needn't mean anything to you. Your quip about the Divine Enforcer notwithstanding, you are illustating my point with alacrity.[/font]
To one who does not believe Jesus is the son of God, it is certainly true that "love your enemy" is not a command. However, it
is an idea, or you could call it a suggestion, or a moral to the story, or any manner of other things. And for the most part, we unbelievers really like the idea, and many of us do try to live with it in mind. We are probably no more or less successful than anyone else at attaining the goal, but it is worth pointing out that the most successful lovers of their enemies have been of diverse faiths: the Christian Martin Luther King, the Christian Nelson Mandela, the Christian and Muslim women who banded together to end Liberia's Civil War, the Hindu Mohandas Gandhi.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 30, 2010, 07:14:08 PM
Karl:
Give a little thought to how many atheists you might have met in your life who said nothing about religion. I'm confident that most atheists not only don't talk about religion; they don't think about it at all.
This. If you had known me from real life rather than the Internet, Karl, you would never have known I was an atheist. I attended Rice University for three years, and, discounting the "secular students" organization, only five of my fellow students ever found out, two because they asked directly, one because I was encouraging her doubts (sorry!), one who simply guessed, and one because he had invited me to youth-group-sponsored Wednesday night dinners at his Episcopal Church and I was offering to pay for my meal as compensation for my not really belonging (he insisted I not pay, and I ended up going for the company of friends for most of my time as a student).
Quote from: Joe Barron on September 30, 2010, 12:38:03 PM
Athiests rule, Catholics drool (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=atheists&st=cse)
Who would suspect, for example, that Cosmas and Damian are the patron saints of doctors, pharmacists and hairdressers? Transubstantiation, anyone? Pop quiz: Explain the distinction between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
I am Christian yet I can answer the first question with yes and the other two with the correct answer.
But this is completely immaterial. Christians are not required to have
knowledge about their faith, but simply
faith. Christianity is not an intellectualist gnosis.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 04:44:13 PM
I'm sorry, Joe, we were talking generally, I believed. Why this ad hominem? To deflect the discussion, right?
Thank you for conceding that you wish to derail the discussion with personal remark. I can see where it is more convenient.
It is the small acts between people which are the atoms of which the world is formed, Joe. It is not petty.
Thanks for another simplistic, scornful caricature, Joe. Such a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Karl I think you're doing exactly what you accuse Joe of doing - you're focusing on other things to deflect the good points he is making, so that you don't need to address them. I don't think he was being insulting, and the passive aggressive sarcasm is actually quite rude. Why dismiss someone who is actually trying to engage with what you're saying?
Quote from: Bulldog on September 30, 2010, 07:14:08 PM
Karl:
Give a little thought to how many atheists you might have met in your life who said nothing about religion. I'm confident that most atheists not only don't talk about religion; they don't think about it at all.
Yes. I might say, yes, of course, for I think you will not be surprised that this thought (the ongoing consideration, really) is not new to me. Generally, to be sure, a point very well taken, Don.
Quote from: Guido on October 01, 2010, 03:11:23 AM
Karl I think you're doing exactly what you accuse Joe of doing - you're focusing on other things to deflect the good points he is making, so that you don't need to address them. I don't think he was being insulting, and the passive aggressive sarcasm is actually quite rude. Why dismiss someone who is actually trying to engage with what you're saying?
Yes, well, you see, I thought that Joe's snarky comment that I think too much of [myself] was both an evasion of the point, and rude remark, Guido. This I fail to see as in any harmony with your evaluation of someone who is actually trying to engage with what [I'm] saying. You see nothing rude or insulting in comments like "as a son of God he's a disappointment"? You believe that that is someone who is actually trying to engage with what [I'm] saying?