A Huge And Hitherto Undiscovered Cretacious Beast, Part I
Posted in Astronomy, Blogosphere, Logic, Religion, Science on | 3 minutes | 72 Comments →
Sorry, but the title's a little misleading. This post has nothing to do with evolution. Rather, I was on a thread recently when a commenter whose name I like and would enjoy hearing an explanation of (Mike aka MonolithTMA) made a passing comment that got me thinking:
I always wonder why theists bring up Ockham's Razor as it points about as far away from God as possible, (March 26, 2009 7:44 PM)
I thought that comment was interesting, but I didn't say anything at the moment, just tucked it into the "parsing" file. A few more Ockham's Razor -related comments were subsequently thrown out, the next from the blog owner, Karla:
Ockham's Razor to go with more simple answer that fits. . . To me it would appear that suggesting infinite un-caused universes is more complex than the answer of an eternal being.
Anonymous: And, you would be wrong, as I've explained. god is the most complex "answer" anyone can propose, because the level of complexity for a god would be far and away higher than any other explanation, not to mention all the additional questions it raises, the added layer of the supernatural over the natural universe, and the fact that it can't get off the ground scientifically. You can continue to ignore all of this and erroneously assert that "goddidit" is simple, but it clearly is not.
Does anyone else see the rational difficulties here?
Shouldn't we first figure out if God exists before we start making truth claims for God's simplicity or complexity? Anonymous repeatedly tells Karla in the thread that she has no evidence for God. Note: no evidence.
So, if Karla doesn't have evidence to support her claim that God is more simple than infinite universe hypotheses, how might Anonymous have evidence to support his claim that God must necessarily be the most complex answer anyone can propose? Note he doesn't actually explain why God must be more complex, he simply tells Karla she's wrong based on nothing more than his presupposition that God MUST be "the most complex answer anyone can propose." Tell me, why should we value his assumption over hers? And to be fair, Karla was making a reserved statement for the purpose of an example that was limited in scope, not any sort of overbearing right-or-wrong truth claim.
It could very well be that God or Truth or the Answer or whatever might be amazingly simple. Amazingly simple causes do produce incredibly complex effects, you know. Should we assume the Grand Canyon represents the wheel-mark of a huge and hitherto undiscovered Cretacious beast riding a unicycle left by Von Daniken's proverbial chariots of the gods? Or something much simpler, like lots and lots of running water?
Dawkins-esque mandates about God's complexity in full absence of evidentiary substantiation are not what I wanted to get into, and I'll leave it to Anonymous to call himself a rationalist and declare there's no evidence for God, then turn around and declare that a God for which there's no evidence must be the most complex answer. If we have zero evidence of something, how might we deduce anything reliable about it?
On what demonstrable evidence does Anonymous base his claim, if I might borrow a real-world criteria from perhaps the funniest guy online, PhillyChief, who gives us the glorious and wondrous miracle tit?
*to be continued
John Evo
says...03/28/2009 09:24:37 PM
I said I wouldn’t do the tangent with you, but since you at least made a meager effort to say SOMETHING – ANYTHING about the original comment, I’ll play along for awhile.
If you don’t know about Jokela it’s on you to catch up with the rest of the class, Evo.
Yeah, cl, now that you CLARIFY what you were referring to (really? That’s your example?) I do recall. I’d love for you to quiz the “rest of the class” and see how many of them even “recall”.
Hell no, man is not the product of evolution via natural selection? Hell no, atheists don’t believe that? Care to clarify what you’re saying “Hell no” to?
“Hell no” I’m giving you credit for #2 on your list of atheist beliefs. Now, while most atheists accept the science (not believe) natural selection as a fact, they don’t HAVE TO because of atheism. It ISN’T an “atheist belief” (or a belief at all in the sense of “beliefs” as we are debating them). Many religious people also accept the fact of natural selection, but it isn’t a “belief” of atheists because the only “belief” that atheists have is that there is no god (or nothing supernatural, if you prefer). That’s IT. Nothing more. Nada.
Point is, religious people have beliefs, irreligious people have beliefs.
They certainly do… but we are talking about the “beliefs” of an atheist. There is only ONE. Thinking there is no god, is SO implausible a reason to commit a terrorist act, that in your groping for one (out of the millions you could find of a religious nature) you were stuck with the incredibly famous case of JOKELA, who did it for “natural selection” (interesting side thought: if Jokela is a religionist, would you still think his act was “terrorism due to atheism”?)
Finally – you give me your “first problem” with my comment.
I don’t know if it does or doesn’t. I think it does, but I don’t think it does right now. Either way, why should I take your word for it?
YOU THINK? I believe you once said to me, in a similar exchange – Whoop dee do. Where do we go from there?
You should only take my word for it, because there has been no empirical means of exploring the god question and you COULD concede this fact, and simply say, “well yeah, UNTIL we do come up with an empirical means of exploring the question, we might as well table it, like you say Evo”.
Is there a “second problem” with what I said?
Pine
says...In defense of Anonymous, I think it is fair to examine claims made about a being without actually determining the likelihood of its existence. So I would disagree that we have to establish that God exists in order to examine claims made about God or to propose claims about what God would be like if He did exist. For example; I can very well say it is ridiculous to believe that the rainbow sherbert tree (a tree whose fruit is rainbow sherbert) has roots which thrive in soil with an acidic base. I can however, without ever addressing whether or not I believe this tree exists, state what I believe to be the most likely soil this tree which produces rainbow sherbert would thrive in based upon what I know about trees and what I can rationally make an argument for based upon how I imagine a tree which produces rainbow sherbert fruit would most likely function.
That said, I wonder if you could clear something up for me about Ockham’s Razor. I understand that it means the simplier explanation among all those which fit is the one which should be retained, is this right? If so, why is it not simple to say that a complex perfect omni-max Being brought everything into existence? Surely the Being Itself would not be simple… but does Ockham’s Razor dictate that the elements of the solution be the most simple or simply the solution itself? What I mean is, it is very simple to imagine a more complex Being creating less complex things. The Being itself is complex, but the answer is simple.
I like your points regarding the necessity of an infinitely complex Being to create the universe not necessarily holding true from a rational perspective. To be fair though, do you think the Bible does depict God as an infinitely complex Being Who we only begin to understand because of His divine revelation to us? From my view Dawkin’s point about an infinitely complex God might be alright… despite its effect of reducing the likelihood of such a Being as to be regarded as nearly impossible… but then I am a monotheist so I find it very appealing to accept that it would be incomprehensibly unlikely (should one God exist) for multiple Gods to exist. I also very much enjoy the idea of worshipping and following the lead of the most complex and powerful Being in existence.
cl
says...That’s just a little bit different than my actual gripe though. Would you agree that without evidence, the claim that God must be simple and the claim that God must be “the most complex answer” are both unfounded? That’s what I’m getting at.
Stick around for Part II. And just curious – did you read Anonymous’ arguments in the linked thread?
Pine
says...CL:
Now, yes. Before, no. Sorry it was long and I was lazy. (regarding reading the linked thread) I’m still not sure I completely understand but I will reserve any further questions until I read part 2.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...To me it is the very complexity of God that makes him as the answer complex. It’s like a mathematical equation where the variable “G” represents something incredibly complex, but is only represented by the letter.
And now, the story of my name. Michael or Mike of course is the name my parents gave me, but the name MonolithTMA was a character I played in an online role playing game, which I haven’t played in years, called Clan Lord.
My character began as Monolith The Good, he came from a small village where the practice was to give children names that would inspire them to act in a certain way. Monolith The Good became rather well known and had many friends, then one day I decided to take a long break from the game, and when I returned I dropped the title and just went with Monolith. When old friends asked me if I was Monolith The Good, I would tell them that I used to be, but now I was just Monolith The Merely Adequate or MonolithTMA. When I decided to buy a domain name for my personal web site I decided on merelyadequate.net
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...The complexity of God is usually something that I see theists arguing for and atheists then accept that concept. I don’t feel God is portrayed as simple at all in the Bible.
cl
says...Hi Mike, thanks for the cool backstory. I was always more into video games than RPG-type stuff, myself.
To me, the complexity of God is presupposed. Dawkins’ argument in TGD is presupposition entirely. It could very well be that God or the Source or Truth or whatever is actually very simple.
Pine saw right where I was going with this, meaning that I haven’t got to address what I wanted about the Ockham’s Razor comments from the other thread. So stick around maybe at least long enough for that, I’m curious to see what you’ll think.
cl
says...Mike,
Because…?
John Evo
says...Does the generality proposed by Ockham’s Razor have anything to do with whether or not god exists? Does it MATTER that Dawkin’s oversteps, or that a theist violates the mighty razor?
More importantly, since the question of god doesn’t have any empirical solution, why do we continue discussing it? Will even our desire to have an intelligent “common ground” discussion ever make a dent in the issue?
The real common ground is agreeing to defer all further discussion and claims until the afterlife. The real common ground is in agreeing that whether or not god, certainly no certainty about where it came from, what it did, how it did it, what it’s rules are, what it plans, what it wants. Once this common ground is reached, then we can go forward solving all of the problems of existence that can be approached empirically. If the common ground is not reached, then the very ability to go forward is impeded.
This is where the atheist or agnostic stands on the high ground (even though, on an individual basis, they might stand there entirely by accident). Stop the DISCUSSION of god’s existence, and the living life according to faith, and the atheist or agnostic immediately goes on to whatever problem is at hand. Does the now silent theist proceed with life in the same manner, or does s/he slowly simmer in the inability to marshal the forces of mankind behind her/his personally held dogma?
Lifeguard
says...Sometimes I feel like Ockham’s Razor is great if you’re comparing competing materialist/naturalist explanations to each other or competing supernatural explanations, but if you’re going to compare naturalist to supernaturalist accounts of creation then you never get around the fact that “God did it” is breathtakingly simple (in an albeit very superficial manner).
The other thought I have about the “God would have to be unbelievably complex” argument is as follows: if as a naturalist one concedes that evolution is a simple answer to how complexity arose, aren’t we ceding the ground that complexity can arise from something simple and therefore god wouldn’t have to be necessarily complex? Again, this mitigates in favor of solving certain questions– does god exist– before we start tackling what god might be.
I think Evo (hello, old pal!) might be hitting on where Ockham’s Razor crosses with the atheist/agnostic default position that, in the absence of sufficient evidence we should take the null position because that is “simpler” than leaping to the conclusion that there’s a supernatural world that we can’t detect with our senses. I think that’s a little bit different than arguments about the complexity or simplicity of god himself, if he exists.
That’s my two cents anyway.
Pine
says...Evo:
Sorry but I disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion when you say: “This is where the atheist or agnostic stands on the high ground (even though, on an individual basis, they might stand there entirely by accident). Stop the DISCUSSION of god’s existence, and the living life according to faith, and the atheist or agnostic immediately goes on to whatever problem is at hand. Does the now silent theist proceed with life in the same manner, or does s/he slowly simmer in the inability to marshal the forces of mankind behind her/his personally held dogma?”
Here’s a few reasons why:
“The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” _Karl Marx (A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right (1844))
“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough – I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.”_Friedrich Nietzsche
“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that.” _Richard Dawkins
Sorry if I misunderstood your comment, but it seemed like you were implying that if no one pressured an agnostic or atheist with religion that they would be content to dwell in silent contentment alongside those who embraced faith in God. On this I would say you are wrong. Not that I feel the Christians take your supposed ‘high road’ on this one either. If the Christian is correct then the atheist has led many into moral corruption. Likewise, if the atheist is correct then the Christian has also led many down a road of moral corruption (if it could be determined anything would be ‘immoral’ outside of our subjective worldviews at that point) For this reason, I believe the ‘high road’ is to discuss (as kindly as possible) our different belief systems and actually try to resolve the conflict. As I’m sure neither side (atheist or Christian) really finds it ‘morally ok’ to allow the moral corruption of others with false ideas.
cl
says...“..if as a naturalist one concedes that evolution is a simple answer to how complexity arose, aren’t we ceding the ground that complexity can arise from something simple and therefore god wouldn’t have to be necessarily complex?”
Exactly. And although I gleaned bits and pieces, I’m not sure what Evo was getting at up there. I myself am a fan of the NULL position as starting point on any reasonable idea, but in my opinion, many rationalists only pay homage to this idea with lip service. As with effectively partisan politicians who self-describe as moderate, many agnostics have (a)theist leanings. Agnostic means without knowledge, and that’s a perfect description of NULL. I’m speaking more specifically in a programming context. Consider a variable set to NULL.
cl
says...Rats Pine I responded before I saw your comment. While I don’t want to get into anything with you and Evo, I’d like to note something particularly laughable about the Dawkins quote you provide, which BTW, if you don’t mind, can you cite that? Isn’t it from TGD?
Notice the flagrant conflation of beliefs (general) with terrorism and 9/11 (specific). Now correct me if I’m wrong anyone in this thread, but isn’t conflation a logical fallacy? And what about some special pleading while we’re at it? Atheists have beliefs and commit acts of terrorism too, you know. This statement is highly ironic and hypocritical coming from someone who has voiced legitimate concern over people conflating evolution and the Holocaust, and Dawkins would probably shit his pants and send out a worldwide press release full of “outrage” if some creationist wrote a book debasing evolution via natural selection titled, We Used To Think Evolution Was Just A Harmless Theory, But Jokela Changed All That, don’t you think?
Conflation and special pleading from the Dawk for breakfast on a Saturday? Argh. Thanks Pine, but next time hit me with some salt so it tastes better :)
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...“Because…?”
Heck, based on titles alone, it’s clear that he is portrayed as being multifaceted.
cl
says...Mike,
I suppose if you’re saying in terms of all the different character attributes. But remember, those are purported to be articulations of the God or the Truth or the Source, right? What I’m saying is this: For the sake of argument, say we all die and then stand before God. We might at that moment realize that God was really something very simple, that what God wanted for people was really something very simple.
And really, it’s all besides the point. What this post is getting at is what I perceive as Anon’s hypocrisy in taking Dawkins’ (who took Russell’s who took JS Mill’s, etc.) bait by simply presupposing that God “must be the most complex answer,” when nature is filled with all kinds of examples of simple causes producing complex effects: Water and the Grand Canyon was my initial example; Lifeguard upped the ante and pointed out that evolution itself – on which Anon’s worldviews are inextricably founded – is a rather simple process that leads to complex and seemingly paradoxical results.
If we’re to call ourselves rationalists, what’s good for the goose must also pass for the gander. That’s what I’m saying in this post.
John Evo
says...Now correct me if I’m wrong anyone in this thread, but isn’t conflation a logical fallacy?
No more than appeals to authority. “DAWKINS said”, “NIETZSCHE said”, “MARX said”…. Lions and tigers and bears – OH MY!
Atheists have beliefs and commit acts of terrorism too, you know.
Really. Can you enumerate the “beliefs” of an atheist? And these “acts of terrorism”… In the NAME of atheism, or DUE to atheism?
And although I gleaned bits and pieces, I’m not sure what Evo was getting at up there.
Well, I probably could have worded the whole thing better… but it probably isn’t worth it. Since both cl and pine seem to believe I have “buried the lead” in the final paragraph, I’ll just assure you both that this was NOT the point of my comment. And rather than re-writing it or even re-stating it, I’ll accept that the paragraph “interests” you both way to much and suggest dropping it entirely and concentrating on everything else – particularly the first two.
cl
says...Fer Pete’s sake Evo, quoting somebody is not an appeal to authority! An appeal to authority takes the general form of, “Such-and-such authority said this, so it’s correct..” It’s an assertion based on credibility, which Pine has not made. Tighten it up.
Well, for one, that there “probably is no God…” For two, that man is the product of “natural selection.” For three, that nothing supernatural exists. Come on, Evo. Also note the second belief is not inherently atheist, either.
In the name of “natural selection” and DUE to “natural selection,” specifically, which was the point of the metaphor.
John Evo
says...Well, fuck, I suppose I should just admit I don’t communicate all that well and give up…
“interests you both TOO much”
“Are these ‘acts of terrorism’ committed in the NAME of terrorism? If so, examples and explanation. Are they committed DUE to the atheistic nature of the individuals? Again, if so, please provide examples and explanation.
John Evo
says...Jesus… and I think I’M bad…
First you admit that “natural selection” is NOT atheism (then WHY mention it)? Then you boldly declare, that terrorist attacks have been done in NAME OF and DUE TO natural selection? WHAT acts? And why bring them up if they are not done because of “atheism”?
So, your “enumeration” – the atheist believes 1. There is no god. Nicely done. Then Natural… oh, HELL NO. Then, nothing supernatural… please. You might as well just say “nothing supernatural as the ONLY belief, because god sure as shit is supernatural.
Finally, are you NOW prepared to deal with my original comment minus the final paragraph? I’m not respond further to this other stuff. It takes two to tangent.
cl
says...If you don’t know about Jokela it’s on you to catch up with the rest of the class, Evo. The perpetrator was motivated specifically by “natural selection” and the desire to be a “natural selector” in society – with a gun.
Hell no, man is not the product of evolution via natural selection? Hell no, atheists don’t believe that? Care to clarify what you’re saying “Hell no” to?
Nothing supernatural, no God, however you phrase it those are atheist beliefs, right? So I answered your rhetorical question; leave it at that. Point is, religious people have beliefs, irreligious people have beliefs. Beliefs can drive anyone to atrocity, no matter what they believe.
As for your original comment, here’s my first problem:
I don’t know if it does or doesn’t. I think it does, but I don’t think it does right now. Either way, why should I take your word for it? This is presupposition, free lunch, not an argument, and what does it have to do with anything? As for the rest of it, the lead was kinda buried, so can you clarify there, too?
cl
says...I already said that.
NO. I hate that word. People used to think lightning and fire were supernatural. Either way, yes, atheists have beliefs just like anyone else.
Millions? Please, Evo, accuracy, not exaggeration. Atheists commit atrocities, too, and your whole ploy here is a red herring. Regardless of whatever we think about Jokela, the Dawk conflates terrorism with religion as I said, and it’s about as absurd as the example I brought up. That you think my example is absurd shows that the ideas are parallel in their absurdity, and that works in my favor, not yours and especially not Dawkins’.
Exactly. You getting it yet? I don’t know if “God has an empirical solution” or not, so I don’t make a truth-claim like you. But anyways, that’s why I said, “I don’t think it does right now.” So I’ve already said what you asked for. Yes, it doesn’t seem science can apprehend God via empiricism right now.
So what are you suggesting, anyways? Can you summarize the points you want to make in this thread?
Arthur
says...I’m not sure why the Dawkins quote is illogical or unreasonable, or even counterintuitive. Why doesn’t it make complete sense for people—who considered religion to be nonsense, but harmless—to modify their perceptions of religion in light of 9/11? What does such a re-evaluation have to do with previous actions by irreligious people? This sounds more like a strong emotional response to Richard Dawkins than genuine attention to what he said.
On the contrary, the evolution metaphor should help to illustrate the reasons why people—theistic and non—assume God is complex. We agree (I think) that, in the real world around us, complex effects can spring from simple causes. But, at bottom, the simple causes are considered to be mindless mechanical processes (like water eroding the Grand Canyon), and nobody ever compares God to those. It’s at the complex end of the spectrum that you find consciousness, and personality, and all the sorts of things that people do regularly attribute to God.
The problem for theists is that not simply that they themselves claim to know that God’s nature includes these apparently complex features, but that those features—in our experience—require causes from which to develop. God’s not supposed to have a cause.
cl
says...Arthur,
Explain how the following quote is logical or reasonable, and that should become plain as day:
“Many of us saw natural selection as harmless nonsense. We thought, if stubborn atheists needed a crutch to explain how biological life arose, where’s the harm? Jokela changed all that.”
So surely then, it must also be a “problem” when an atheist makes the same claim, right? Because that’s exactly what caused me to write this post, and I thought it was a problem, too.
John Evo
says...Can you summarize the points you want to make in this thread?
Sure.
Since the question of god doesn’t have any empirical solution, at this time, why do we continue discussing it – at this time?
Why not agree to defer all further discussion and claims until the afterlife, or until we can speak empirically?
This seems like a reasonable common ground. One that would keep us away from the dangers of dogmatic thinking.
cl
says...You seem to be presupposing that only empirical solutions are valid solutions, and if that’s the case, I disagree, and what do you mean by “empirical solution” anyways? Like “God-prints” or something? Videotape of God perhaps?
If “reasonable common ground” means deferring discussion until the matter has already been proven, well, I just don’t follow the logic in that either, but if you want to speak empirically, then let’s speak empirically.
John Evo
says...No, No. I’ll accept your rejection of my point.
Let’s DO discuss the existence of god in a non-empirical way. That should be productive, since mankind has mad such strides in this area previously.
I believe we are back to you giving me a couple lines of non-empirical bits of evidence of god…
Arthur
says...If you believe that this is a valid analogy—that Pekka-Eric Auvinen was motivated by natural selection in the same way that the 9/ll terrorists were motivated by religion—then you are beyond the reach of rational discourse. Again. Notwithstanding, even, your cavalier dismissal of natural selection itself.
And, since you appear to have missed it the first time, here’s my other point:
If you’re feeling snippy, just respond some other time. Interrupting the quote, and pretending to have addressed the point, won’t help your pretense of interest in clear thinking.
John Evo
says...Arthur –
I was under the impression that cl has no problem with natural selection. Further, he seems to concede, that natural selection is not a “belief” of atheism. It’s unclear why he thinks it’s valid analogy in ANY sense.
He eventual just waved it off and said, everyone including atheists have beliefs and have committed atrocities. Then he adds: “That you think my example is absurd shows that the ideas are parallel in their absurdity”, so yeah, he clearly thinks he has a valid analogy.
Pine
says...Arthur:
Umm… why do atheists get a pass? I know you don’t feel that cl’s analogy holds up… why? Ever hear of Stalin?
How do you reconcile your double standard in your mind? All someone has to do is make a CLAIM of Christianity, then everything they say or do wrong is considered indicative of Christians as a whole. Why is the same standard not applied to atheists?
Don’t get me wrong, I hate the logic which examines only the smallest percentage of the worst of a group and holds them up as the quintessential ‘type’ of that group.
It’s hypocrisy and close-minded bigotry which rivals Archie Bunker.
cl
says...Pine,
Because, Pine, they’re the smart and rational ones who are “nearly almost always right.” It’s the theists who are dumb and irrational! Come on, you should know that much already :)
John Evo,
You should know I don’t think a successful ontological argument exists.
Arthur,
Why? Where’s your argument? Again, all I’m hearing from you is, “If you think different than me, you’re (fill in the blank with insult of choice).” That’s not an argument.
I have no idea what you’re talking about there.
Do you think snippy atheists will help my interest in clear thinking? Seriously. And I addressed the point. My point. Which is that whether atheist or theist, nobody gets to make a truth-claim that God must be simple or complex. None of us has any idea, nor does your presuppositional paragraph support the idea that God must be complex.
John Evo,
It’s a valid analogy because it parallels Dawkins’ perfectly. Dawkins argues that the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by religion, and because of that, we should change the way we look at religion. So, Auvinen was motivated by natural selection. Should we change the way we view natural selection now, too?
The point I’m making, which you and Arthur seem to be missing, is that any idiot can attempt to justify any action with any belief system, religious or otherwise, and that people who are already pre-motivated to kill can do it for any reason, religious, atheist, or something else. Maybe you guys think it’s okay for a Ph.D scholar to conflate religion with terrorism only to reinforce his own bias. I don’t.
Arthur
says...It’s so cute when you complain about people being snarky.
Pine,
“Natural selection” is a descriptive fact of the world, or at least it gives every indication of being so. The term refers to a very specific principle of science. It is not something which can be re-evaluated in light of a school shooting, or in light of anything else (besides evidence to the contrary). It’s a description.
“Religion” is a very broad term, and can mean many things to different people. For the 9/11 terrorists, it seems safe to say that it was a meaningful motivating principle (cl is perhaps advancing an alternative idea—that they were “pre-motivated to kill” by some other means—but that sounds like off-the-cuff bull hockey to me). This is not to say that it plays that role for everyone, or even that it plays that role often, but only that it did so on that occasion.
If you felt, before 9/11, that religious belief was “harmless,” why would you not re-evaluate your feelings afterwards? Dawkins might well say unreasonable things, but this just doesn’t seem to be one of them. “Atheists have beliefs and commit acts of terrorism too, you know” is an interesting admission from cl—since it appears to concede Dawkins’ point—but it doesn’t have any bearing on the question.
Parroting someone, and inserting “natural selection” for “religion,” says a great deal more about the parrot than it does about the subject of discussion. At best it’s incoherent; more likely, in cl’s case, it’s stirring up mud.
John Evo,
At least he’s not pretending that religion makes people better.
cl,
If “nobody gets to make a truth-claim that God must be simple or complex,” then your fight is with the religious. The only reason for atheists to point out God’s complexity is because theists insist on describing Him that way. You yourself require that an event must, at the least, have conscious intent behind it in order to be a miracle; but you seem now to be refusing to explain how you square consciousness with simplicity (like water, eroding stuff). Either we’re allowed to speculate—and you should address the point—or we’re not—in which case, stop doing it.
cl
says...Arthur,
Interesting you’re talking about mud while standing there in your galoshes. Religion was not the cause of 9/11. Natural selection was not the cause of Jokela. Do you agree? Or disagree?
Are you that bent on showing me to be an incoherent, irrational scumbag that you still don’t get what the OP was about? I mean I don’t mind a little thread drift here and there, but for crying out loud, you’ve done nothing here but attack me on the Dawkins thing and statements I’ve made in other threads.
So do two logical fallacies entail cogency in your book?
Yes, that’s correct…
ARTHUR – nobody asked me that, so how could I refuse to explain it? Would you like to ask me a question, you know, before you accuse me of refusing to explain? This is hilarious.
Anyone is allowed to speculate. Nobody is allowed to tell someone they can’t make a truth-claim about God’s simplicity, then turn around and make a truth-claim about God’s complexity.
Why don’t you address that point? That is, you know, what this post was about.
Pine
says...Arthur,
It seems to me that cl’s point is still valid, though I do understand the difference between ‘natural selection’ and ‘religion’ in the way you described, and for the most part I agree.
Where the disconnect comes for me is that you aren’t willing to admit that the person from cl’s example was willing to justify their action by their worldview. Don’t get me wrong, the religious often try to invoke God’s will as an excuse for horrid things they have done.
It seems to me that as human beings we like to belong and thus all find a certain part of our identity in what we believe to be true. While this does not have to necessarily be a negative, it is usually also accompanied by isolation from those with views which differ from ours. I find it convenient that the person with a worldview that we ‘evolved’ and he is just helping evolution out gets a pass in terms of his worldview being an influence upon his actions while the religous who uses their ‘religious’ worldview to justify their actions get very different treatment.
If we are to re-examine religion because of acts of terrorism, then by the same logic we should re-evaluate rational thinking as it could lead to the de-valuation of human life. cl’s really not off base here.
Pine
says...Sorry for the double post… but in mentioning the isolation we naturally feel from those with views that differ from ours, I meant to further propose that this isolation leads to us de-valuing those of the ‘other’ groups. We naturally feel superior to those whose viewpoints differ. This is dangerous because as we isolate ourselves in this elevated position, it is possible for us to stop viewing our opponents as people whose life’s have the same value as ours.
IE: I feel it is the isolation caused by differnt viewpoints, not necessarily the viewpoints themselves, which make it possible for people to ‘justify’ murderous acts in their minds.
John Evo
says...You should know I don’t think a successful ontological argument exists.
So no empirical argument (at least at this stage) and no ontological argument.
Are you left with “individual inspiration”, or is there anything else? If it is a “unique feeling” that some might or might not have, should it be given credence by those who don’t receive the inspiration? And should it be taken to the next level – that of an “god knowledge” that would be compatible with dogma? If not, why not?
cl
says...When I say no successful empirical argument or no successful ontological argument exists, I mean to say that I cannot succeed in using logic and empiricism to prove God to you, or any other person for that matter. Now, I could share some interesting empirical facts with you, but something tells me you’ll just wave them away as insignificant. I could share with you my subjective feelings and experiences, but how can these serve as arguments? I can’t expect you to believe in God because of my experiences, you don’t even know me.
What makes you think I’m the arbiter of what those who don’t receive the inspiration should think? I can’t say what they should or shouldn’t think.
You’re gonna have to clarify that one if you want me to play with it.
cl
says...Pine,
I understand that difference too. What I don’t think Arthur understands is how that difference relates zero to my argument. The differences between religion and natural selection have nothing to do with the fact that,
As for,
I realize your just being respectful and that’s cool, but no need to apologize (to me at least), because anyone can comment as many times in a row as they want / feel / need to here. I don’t have rules on speech. It’s all encouraged.
John Evo
says...I said: in your groping for one (out of the millions you could find of a religious nature) you were stuck with the incredibly famous case of JOKELA
cl replied: Millions? Please, Evo, accuracy, not exaggeration.
1. Is this at least accurate “enough” to justify my comment and negate your reply on this specific point?
2. Whether or not Dawkins and others were sleep-walking through life and didn’t wake up to the immense dangers of religious beliefs until 9/11 (Dawkins SHOULD have, as a Brit who grew up in close proximatey to religiously based violence, been very aware of its dangers), aren’t you happy that a number of great academic scholars finally woke the fuck up? I am.
Pine
says...Evo:
I’m just not sure you get it. Do you really feel it was the religion itself which caused the violence? If so, then why is religion not more successful in breeding violence?
Even if the MILLIONS of examples you presuppose of religous violence exist, that doesn’t account for the other BILLIONS of religious folk who have existed for thousands (or millions in your worldview?) who NEVER commit acts of violence. How do you account for that?
Also, is it just Christian religion? Is it only the Muslim religion? (as 9/11 was more related to Islam than to any other depending on the depth of your 9/11 conspiracy theory) Should we now consider all Buddhist monks violent because they are religous? Watch your step… they claim to be about peace… but turn your back and WHAM! They’ll get you. Please. I get the feeling that you are typing ‘religion’ and yet thinking of very specific ‘religions’. I’m sure the Dawk was doing quite the same.
Many atheists admit, and in fact lament, the fact that they are few in number compared to those who accept religion as fact. In fact, many atheists believe that there were fewer and fewer true atheists the farther you go back into history and that only now are more people beginning to ‘wake up’ to ‘the knowledge of atheism’. If you think this is true, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that less acts of violence were committed ‘in the name’ of atheism than those committed in the name of religion as there are and have been many more religious than atheist people who have existed? Do you have exact data regarding the number of religous acts throughout all history committed by each religion and committed by those who were actually atheist (no matter what belief’s they claimed due to social pressures) so that we can honestly compare and contrast the percentage of acts of violence per capita for each belief system? If not… how can you EVER make a claim that one religion or worldview causes people to act more violently than another?
Seems to me like you’re grasping at a desperate straw to cling to your unproven and unfounded presupposition that religous folk are more prone to commit acts of violence. It’s a nice crutch but the truth is that humans don’t need ‘religion’ to be violent towards one another. In fact we often need little motive at all… religion/atheism/other worldviews just help ease our coinscience once the acts have been comitted.
cl
says...Evo,
1) No, we do not have millions of cases of religiously-based terrorism and genocide so your statement is still an exaggeration. Yes, there are millions of victims of religiously-based terrorism and genocide. Further, terrorism and genocide that claims millions of victims can and has occurred under several atheist contexts as well. Lastly, the reason for the huge discrepancy just might have something to do with the numbers game Pine mentions.
2) I don’t think illogic helps any situation, and in general, religious beliefs aren’t dangerous, but terrorists and terrorism are. IMO, you make the same mistake as Dawkins in your last comment, where “religious beliefs” and “danger” and “terrorism” are all conflated in your mind. And I don’t know that a “great number of academic scholars” has “woke the fuck up.” I have no idea who you’re referring to. I don’t think that pre-9/11 academic scholars weren’t privy to the idea that zealotry and hijacked aircraft didn’t mix. And I don’t think 9/11 was some victory atheists should use to advertise the superiority of their position over anyone else’s.
Arthur
says...Pine,
I thought religious people did feel that religion guided their behavior. I thought that was part of the purpose of religion.
Now, I’ve heard it charged that scientists want to replace religion with evolution; is that where this discussion is pointing? Because that charge sounds as ridiculous to me as it ever did. Now that cl has volunteered that natural selection is a crutch for stubborn atheists, perhaps he will volunteer information on the Church of Darwin.
Evolution is a description of the world. It is the Grand Unifying Theory of Biology. It doesn’t pretend to guide anyone’s behavior. I don’t want to “give a pass” to crazy people with guns either, but what are you suggesting? That the theory should be held responsible for people’s claims on it? That it should be modified, or discarded? That we should deliberately revise our description of the world around us because of people’s misguided behavior?
cl,
You agreed with Lifeguard about this:
I said:
I have since pointed out that you yourself make such attributions. Do you really need this phrased in the form of a question? Is it really so infuriatingly off-topic?
Pine
says...Arthur:
Yes, religion does seek to change people and influence their lives. Does that mean that every action of a religious practicioner accurately reflects the teachings of the religion? Also, do their actions necessarily have to reflect the attitudes and feelings of others who practice this religion? Yes or no?
You said, “Evolution is a description of the world.”. People who believe in God see their religion as an EXPLANATION of the world and why humans are bent on harming and deceiving one another. Should they abandon the facts of their religion simply because a few people out of their minds carry out atrocious acts in the name of God? Does it change the nature of God because people do bad things while claiming to be one of His followers?
How come the religous reference gets to be all-encompassing? Wasn’t it Islamists who committed the act of 9/11? Why do all religions get lumped in with them? That’s like saying we need to re-examine rational thought processes (and all those who base their worldview off of empirical evidence) because a few ‘scientfically’ minded people do bad things.
“Oh the way Glen Miller played…”
Arthur
says...Pine,
There is a school of thought which says that there is a Real World Out There—an objective, observable reality to which we all have access—and that “empirical evidence, and the “rational thought processes” by which we evaluate it, are the common ground we all share. These things are as unaffected by the bad things that scientifically minded people do—or the bad things that anybody does—as they are by the religions people follow. These things are descriptive, and we can’t change our descriptions without making them less accurate. It’s just the way things are (it is said).
If you don’t believe in a Real World Out There, then the above must all sound like irresponsible speculation; but I must add that religious people seem more than happy to defer to rational thought and empirical evidence themselves, inasmuch as those things don’t interfere with beliefs held to be beyond their reach.
If I believe in the Real World Out There, what am I to make of various people’s claims to knowledge which is beyond the reach of evidence and observation? Knowledge which, evidently, is available to some and not to others? What if many people claim such knowledge, and their claims conflict?
There remains one useful thing to do: categorize beliefs by the degree to which they’re based on our common observable reality.
The 9/11 terrorists were motivated, at least in part, by their belief in things other than our common observable reality, things I have no reason to accept as fact. In my country, a great many politicians claim to be motivated by their belief in things which I have no reason to accept as fact. This, indeed, seems to be the common ground for the religious: accepting, as fact, what cannot actually be known or observed or evaluated in any objective way.
You ask if religious people “should…abandon the facts of their religion simply because a few people out of their minds carry out atrocious acts in the name of God,” but what does it mean to say that a religion has facts? It seems to me (on the outside looking in, I admit) that there is no religion so “factual” that it has stood the test of time unaltered. The books of the Bible alone demonstrate incredible interpretive flexibility, supporting vast, ever-growing family trees of denominations and the “facts” those denominations hold dear.
People’s knowledge and understanding of their common reality has only become more thorough, detailed, and specific; the beliefs of “people who believe in God” are at least as fragmented and irreconcilable as they ever were. Clearly, if a religion can be said to have “facts,” it is in an altogether different sense of the word.
I really don’t mean to be harsh, as hard as that might be to believe. But this thread insists on trying to analogize science and religious faith, and that’s just a bad analogy.
cl
says...Arthur,
You still don’t get the Dawkins thing it seems:
We’re suggesting that you stop defending Dawkins’ absurd logic, and we’re suggesting that you admit, “Yeah, it’s true, any belief system can be used as a justification for terrorism, so yeah, conflating religion with terrorism was stupid of Dawkins.”
Or, in Pine’s well-reasoned words:
Make sense yet?
Yes, I do attribute consciousness to God. Do you suggest this is another “gotcha” moment for yourself or something? If so, enlighten me.
cl
says...Arthur,
I posted before seeing Comment #43, but it still seems you don’t see the point:
The point is not to get sidetracked into comparing religion against science. That’s an entirely different discussion. You seem to be saying, “The analogy is bad, because rationalism / natural selection are descriptive and factual, religion is not.” Even if I agreed with you totally there, which I do not, your point still relates zero to the analogy or its scope.
The point, again: Any belief system can motivate any idiot to kill a bunch of people. Natural selection, like religion, can lead idiots to kill people. Since this is true, it’s absurd for a Ph.D scholar with 6-figure publishing deals to misinform and mislead the public by conflating terrorism with religion, just as absurd as you and I both know it is for me to conflate natural selection and/or atheism with terrorism.
Right?
John Evo
says...You folks have been busy. I’ll read all of this later; but just want to respond to this for now –
Pines – Do you really feel it was the religion itself which caused the violence?
In some cases, the religious dogma has called for the literal destruction of heretics/apostates. I could undoubtedly provide millions examples of such. More commonly, it is not the teaching of destruction, but the fact that dogmatic beliefs require the mind to categorize those who don’t believe as less valuable. In this case, religion doesn’t order violence, but leads to it.
This is what you see when Euros came to the New World. Can you seriously doubt that if native Americans had been praising sweet baby jesus when the Euros got here, that many more of them wouldn’t have survived? Now, I don’t think jesus was going to protect them against the new diseases that were introduced, but a lot more would have been spared violent death at the hands of dogmatists who just “knew” that these people had to be turned in the “right” direction, no matter what.
As Arthur has tried to point out – understanding that evolution means we are are related, and all species are related, is not something that is EVER going to lead to genocide. Further, it is a scientific knowledge that is only tangentially related to atheism, which is simply, “there is no god”.
Some people have really bad ideas. Some of those people are even atheists. We humans kind find a lot of reasons for killing each other. Natural selection is never a reason except, as in cl’s example, with a psychotic mind. Religion quite often is, even among ordinary people.
Are some religions, such as Buddhism less malevolent than others? Absolutely. And you’ll notice they tend to be less dogmatic as well.
cl
says...John Evo,
Well then by all means, toss us a bone, and be more clear as to what you mean by “cases” because I don’t think you have over 2 million examples cases where “the religious dogma has called for the literal destruction of heretics/apostates.” There are millions of victims of religiously motivated terror and genocide, there are millions of victims of atheist terror and genocide.
Isn’t that exactly how Auvinen categorized the people he killed, “less fit” (ie, valuable) members of the “failed” human race? Didn’t Auvinen justify this belief on Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection?
Do you have any evidence for that statement, other than it’s your own opinion? Capitalizing “ever” doesn’t make it a cogent argument, and misunderstanding of science has already led to genocide.
And (I think) Pine and I are saying, religion is never a reason except within a psychotic, disturbed mind, either. So Dawkins conflates ALL religion with a psychotic, disturbed mind, and you approve. Yet, when I intentionally conflate natural selection or atheism with a psychotic, disturbed mind, you guys practically poop your pants. Don’t you see that as a double standard?
So, now you’re saying that “ordinary” people ram planes into buildings and conduct genocidal sweeps of the countryside? That’s not a very good argument.
Arthur
says...My point, again: natural selection is not a belief system. It is an observable fact of the world. Science is not a belief system. It is a useful–and very successful–means of addressing the observable facts of the world in a systematic way.
I can see the appeal of an analogy which just calls everything a belief system, and which puts the 9/11 terrorists in the same car-pool with Pekka-Eric Auvinen (a disservice to the 9/11 terrorists, it seems to me), but it seems safe to say that its appeal does not come from its clarity.
What is this fascination with people pooping in their pants?
Pine
says...Arthur:
You still haven’t answered why ALL religions get lumped together when one group of religous people commit an act of terror. It seems there was an attempt to say ‘religion causes division in belief systems, these divisions cause violence’. Please explain why non-religous beliefs, factual or not, seem less likely to cause violence in your opinion. Ever been to an Eagles game in Philly? Try walking in wearing the opposing team’s jersey and sitting on the Eagle’s side. Then we can talk about non-religous convictions being less likely to cause violent actions.
Second, do you feel that EVERY conclusion you have drawn based upon science (IE: there is no God) is FULLY supported by that science? It isn’t your ‘science’ which is under attack, it is the perceived implications of science which are called into question. These would be your beliefs. This would put those who hold that the lives of those who are not as advanced drag down mankind’s progression through the evolutionary process would be committing acts of murder and hatred based upon their BELIEFS which they have concluded are true based upon facts, however are still nothing more than their personal and subjective bias’ based upon the way they’ve choosen to interpret those facts.
Need further clarifycation?
cl
says...I’m aware science and natural selection are not “belief systems” and always have been, but I just can’t figure out why you keep harping on that particular difference between religion and science when that difference doesn’t challenge the point of my analogy. Let’s try it like this: “Any belief can motivate any idiot to kill a bunch of people. Natural selection, like religion, can lead idiots to kill people.”
Now, should we look at natural selection differently? Why or why not?
No fascination. Just a funny phrase that I think accurately describes the typical atheist reaction to criticism of Dawkins.
Oh, this is related to something else, but did you happen to notice R.C. Moore’s post hoc reasoning? Now, I don’t really think R.C. committed post hoc reasoning, but please show us that your concern for logical clarity isn’t partisan, and go scrutinize R.C. Moore’s comments with the same tenacity you gave mine.
Or, offer one valid reason why it’s not special pleading if you don’t.
Pine
says...Ok, just re-read the last sentence of paragraph 2 and realize it might be a little cloudy. Let me try this again. Let’s consider if the following 5 points were COMPLETELY true:
1. Changes occur in mankind as a whole over time.
2. These changes are sometimes benefitial.
3. When people who have these ‘benefitial changes’ mate, their offspring are more likely to also have these ‘benefitial changes’.
4. When people who don’t have these ‘benefitial changes’ mate, their offspring are less likely to also have these ‘benefitial changes’.
5. It would seem that if only those who had these ‘benefitial changes’ mated, then these ‘benefitial changes’ would spread throughout mankind at a much faster rate than if both those with and without these ‘benefitial changes’ mated.
Some possible conclusions people could perceive are ‘implied’ by the ‘facts’, and ways they could be wrong.
1. Mankind would be better off not allowing people without the ‘benefitial changes’ to mate so that these changes could spread throughout all mankind at a faster rate.
2. People with these ‘benefitial changes’ are better than people without.
3. The most clear indicator of a person’s value is how many ‘benefitial changes’ they possess.
4. People without these ‘benefitial changes’ are affecting mankind negatively. We would be better off without them.
Problems with this:
A. This ignores that there might be other benefitial changes which could be possessed by others without the given benefitial change in question.
B. This assumes that these changes which are viewed as ‘benefitial’ from our limited subjective perspectives are actually ‘benefitial’ enough to hold any value whatsoever.
C. It argues that a person’s value is based upon the traits they possess, and does not grant value based upon the very nature of possessing life itself. This point, while it might be arguably valid, was not presented in the ‘facts’.
Ok, enough with this. My point is that even though you claim to be basing all of your conclusions off of proven facts you are, in fact, basing much of your worldview upon your biased and subjective conclusions about those facts and implications which the facts may, or in many many cases may not, actually present.
John Evo
says...Please explain why non-religous beliefs, factual or not, seem less likely to cause violence in your opinion.
ANY belief system which requires its adherents follow dogmatic views that are not subject to general scrutiny can CERTAINLY it up as a cause of violence. Nazi Germany was a good example. While Hitler appears to have had some pseudo-mystical/religious beliefs, the adherent to his brand of National Socialism were not required to follow those beliefs. They WERE required to fulfill the role obedient followers of Hitler. Hitler WAS the Dogma.
So I’m not arguing non-religous beliefs, factual or not, seem less likely to cause violence. I’m arguing dogmatic beliefs DO, and religion is one of the most common sources in human culture of dogmatic belief. I’m also arguing that atheism, and certainly not evolution, are not dogmatic beliefs. Again, atheism is not a belief – it’s a statement in rejection of them.
John Evo
says...cl said – There are millions of victims of religiously motivated terror and genocide
Your concession of this point alone is good enough for me.
there are millions of victims of atheist terror and genocide
Utter fabrication. You will undoubtedly pull Stalin out of our hat for this piece of magic. Stalin WAS an atheist. The society was set up to be atheistic. No genocide was committed for failure to be atheistic. It was committed in the name of Stalin’s dogmatic views of communism and his own power within that context. Saying atheism was CASUAL in the genocide is equivalent to saying the forced wearing of a state uniform led to genocide.
But thanks for your agreement that religions HAVE had millions of victims. Let’s get rid of the putrid concept, shall we?
John Evo
says...By the way, I think you’ll probably agree with me that the terror and genocide inflicted on indigenous populations of the area now known as the U.S.A. was not primarily a religious genocide (though there are individual massacres where it played the main role).
Would you not agree that despite U.S. Presidents all being Christians and the general perception in the nineteenth century of the USA being a Christian nation – that the real culprits of that particular genocide were unrestrained capitalism and imperialism?
This is the same point I make about the mythical atheist genocide in the Soviet Union. Stalin and the Soviet communists could have been Christians, Hindus or Buddhists and the same thing would have happened. Hey, maybe that funny mustache he had was the cause. Hmmm… Hitler had one too…
Pine
says...Evo:
Some of the assumed implications of science do become dogmatic. And yes, I still feel that any extremist could cause harm based upon the ‘dogma’ derived from the scientific fact. …hasn’t anyone here EVER heard of eugenics?
John Evo
says...Some of the assumed implications of science do become dogmatic.
Fine, we’ll battle that one together too.
Here – I’ll start: I reject and condemn scientific eugenics.
Now – your turn: I reject and condemn religious dogma. Agreed?
Arthur
says...Pine,
I haven’t said word one about violence being more or less likely to spring from one or another type of person. There is no one I am trying to protect from the charge of being capable of atrocities. Neither have I ever presented “there is no god” as a verdict of science, or of my own for that matter.
I have tried—and failed, evidently—only to make a distinction between the knowledge we all have in common (based on the real, observable world we all have in common) and knowledge based on… I don’t know… sources of a less unanimous nature. This strikes me as a meaningful distinction which is lost, deliberately or not, in cl’s choice of analogy.
Re conclusions drawn from the former: when Pekka-Eric Auvinen claims to be an instrument of natural selection, it is plainly apparent to all that he has, at best, completely misunderstood the principles he is mouthing. Natural selection doesn’t have anything to say on the subject of what people do to one another. If one thinks otherwise, one has made a mistake.
Re conclusions drawn from the latter: I have no idea. You tell me if the 9/11 terrorists misunderstood the principles they thought they represented. Did they violate the terms of their religion? Are they guilty of a crime? It seems safe to say that they did not think so. The answer seems necessarily to entail a certain amount of opinion, or perspective, or cultural context.
(For the record, I personally have a lot more respect for the 9/11 terrorists than I do for Pekka-Eric Auvinen, and I’m frankly surprised that no one else here seems to. Another reason to dislike that analogy is that it doesn’t distinguish between religious zealots and “idiots” or the clinically insane. Is that not a meaningful distinction to anyone?)
Re lumping all religions together: to the ignorant and untutored non-religious layperson—or at least to me—the most pertinent (and immediately apparent) common feature of all religions is that special class of knowledge they claim, which is beyond the reach of reason. This is also, to me, its creepiest feature. I must point out again that, wherever it comes from, it is obviously very flexible, accommodating of a vast range of strange ideas which betray no indication of limits or consistency.
cl,
Just sue me already. Your logic won’t get any better, but maybe I’ll poop my pants.
Pine
says...Evo:
You reject the practice of eugenics, a very specific course of action. Which equally specific Christian Dogma do you point to that has led to the murder of millions which you would like me to reject?
Arthur:
Again you evade what I’ve actually said about natural selection. The point of me making a blanket statement about discriminating against all scientific thought was meant to show you your bias, not to propose a new one. You continue to go on about how the ‘facts’ of natural selection are common to us all… and by doing so show that you are completely missing or ignoring my point. One more time to be clear… I am not saying that views based upon natural selection necessarily must be flawed, what I am saying is that those who develop beliefs based upon what they perceive to be morally implied by the facts of natural selection are basing their worldview on nothing more tangible or provable than what any religious person who bases their beliefs or moral values on what they perceive to be the moral implications of their religon’s teachings.
I see that 2 + 2 = 4. I perceive this to mean that anyone 4 years old or younger should get slapped today. Just because my assertion begins with a fact does not give it any more value as true. It is very possible to draw false conclusions from true evidence.
Not sure I really know enough about Islam to respond to paragraph 4. I would say no, but admittedly I am no expert on the Quran.
I’m torn on paragraph 5. On the one hand I see a point that someone who truly believes they are justified is different from the maniac who just doesn’t care. However… if God isn’t real… then certain things I’ve done which seem moral now would be very wrong. It would be wrong to tell my children to pray to God if He doesnt’ exist… it would be wrong to tell my children the stories of the Bible are true if they are not (for the same reason lying is wrong in any other context). So… I would say ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Perhaps this is a good topic for another thread?
Please clarify and better justify paragraph 6… why do ALL the beliefs of the religous person now fall under the category of “special class of knowledge they claim, which is beyond the reach of reason.”? Can you substantiate this claim? A few things come to mind, “Love your neighbor as yourself” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” “Husbands love your wives. Children be obedient unto your parents”… how are these concepts ‘beyond the reach of reason’ as an expectation for moral living?
I know it was for cl… but don’t poop your pants. :P
John Evo
says...You got me, Pine.
How about the dogma that would lead you to tell your children that the stories of the bible are true?
John Evo
says...Besides terrorism and murder, there are plenty of other reasons for stamping out religion. Here’s a start
And yes, I know the objections – MY faith doesn’t say it. It’s those OTHER “bad” faiths.
Pine
says...Evo:
Because telling my children the stories of the Bible are true (which let’s say we hypothetically consider that they aren’t for the sake of your analogy only) is the same as killing people in the name of progress? Are you kidding me? I know Jack and the Beanstalk is a fairy tale, but even if I told my kids this was true you would equate that with murdering millions? You are just being ridiculous now, and not for the point of argument.
No one has really taken me up on the number of people who commit murderous acts vs number of religous people who live peacably with others and in fact are less violent as a result of their religion. The stance “this group always” or “this group nevers” sounds (without any offered justifycation) like unbridled bigotry at it’s worst.
John Evo
says...I’m willing to be called bigoted if that’s what my intense disregard for all dogmatic religion is.
I’m equally bigoted against people who think men are superior to women, who don’t think universal healthcare should not be a right, who think torture in the name of ending terrorism is an acceptable action. I’m bigoted in a whole bunch of ways, I suppose.
I’m making no analogy between teaching that Noah’s ark is a true story and the murder of millions (other than, of course, if you really believed it you would have to admit that god killed millions).
What I am talking about is putting an end to dogmatic religious beliefs because they lead to actions that are not based on factual knowledge. And I fully acknowledge that actions based on factual knowledge can also be wrong. But you will be clearing a lot of dangerous territory by starting with the removal of dogma. It’s a damn good start – and will leave much more to be done.
I’ve said it before, but I guess I should repeat myself. I’m an atheist who doesn’t mind if people think there is some higher power, as long as they make no factual claims as to what the higher power is, and what they are supposed to do based on its existence. That truly sums up how I feel, Pines.
John Evo
says...“Who don’t think universal health care should be a right”
Sorry.
Arthur
says...Oh, crikey, there’s a whole other page of responses. Mutter, mutter.
Pine,
I have no argument with this formulation, but I’m not sure I’m understanding it correctly.
The facts of natural selection, in fact, do not imply anything on the subject of morality. Whatever one does, if one does it because of morals derived from the principle of natural selection, then one is wrong to do it. Natural selection is a statement of “is,” not “ought.” Religion, on the other hand (I’m pretty sure), is chock-full of moral implications, not to mention moral explications. I’m given to understand that moral behavior is of central importance to religions. You seem to be saying that it is nonetheless no more a tangible source of morality than natural selection is.
Personally, I do believe that our moral sense is derived from our real-world common ground, but I had not previously gotten the feeling that you agreed. On the other hand, if you don’t agree, do you mean to say that both natural selection and religion are sources of morality, but equally dubious sources?
I have to confess that I do care whether or not an assertion is derived from a fact. At least in theory it is possible, in such a case, to determine the simple validity of the assertion. Pekka-Eric Auvinen apparently derived an “ought” from an “is,” just as you did in your math example, and this is true without regard to people’s feelings on the matter.
When the assertion is allegedly derived from some “higher” source, to which not everyone is equally privy, it is practically impossible to judge the motive in an objective way. Was 9/11 a breach of religious protocol? By whose religious protocol should it be judged? I feel pretty sure they acted badly but, without recourse to common real-world standards, who am I to say?
The observable fact that some religious beliefs are more sensible than others doesn’t change the observable fact that all religions appeal to other-worldly sources of authority. Those sources of authority show no consistency, no limits on the sorts of conclusions they’re capable of, and they are immune to real-world criticism. I cannot rationally choose to trust them.
Pine
says...Evo:
What you fail to demonstrate is the direct correlation between religous beliefs and acts of terror. It’s been argued here that both religous and non-religous beliefs can lead to heinous acts, even when those beliefs are based upon facts. Please show the evidence for your conclusion that religous beliefs are more likely to lead to violence than non-religous beliefs…
Arthur:
Who says religous beliefs are not open to valid examination by everone? Who is privy to secret knowledge? You can pick up a Bible as well as I can. Textual criticism must mean nothing.
You act as though variant opinion proves something false. I believe all Shakespear’s plays were written to justify the spanish inquisition. Does my variant opinion make you unable to ‘prove’ that my assertions about his ancient writings are false? Does my ‘special knowledge’ hold up or is it able to be shown as a false conclusion? This is regardless of whether or not you regard the plays of Shakespear to be factual or fiction.
Arthur
says...Pine,
I act as though it were important to distinguish between matters of fact and matters of opinion. If it is something on which reasonable people may have different opinions, then it is not a matter of fact.
I can pick up the Bible as well as you can and, to judge from history, I can either pick any one of thirty thousand flavors of Christianity or I can make up my own. Is that what you mean?
John Evo
says...Pines, if you really need John Evo to provide you with evidence that literally millions of people have been unfairly subjugated, or killed, due to dogmatic religious beliefs – then I give up.
If on the other hand you agree to this fact, but are simply saying that there are many more followers of dogma who do no such thing, I will respond by saying –
Yes, there are. But I don’t simply hold religious beliefs in low esteem for acts of murder. If such people had never blatantly murdered a single person, it would be beneficial to get rid of religion. The mere fact that some people hold all life currently on this planet is descended from the survivors of Noah’s boat, or that other believe that not following the teaching of Mohamed means that they are going to suffer in the afterlife (de facto – there is something about them that is “unworthy” in THIS life) is plenty good reason for giving up that ghost in my book. Apparently not in yours; and so we diverge.
Pine
says...Arthur:
No, what I mean is that while all the perceived implications derived from the Bible may differ, that doesn’t change that there is one text which contains a definate and specific message which can be ascertained through the same process of hermeneutics and textual criticism that we would apply to any other ancient text. Re-read about the last 20 comments. Seriously.
Evo:
Do people commit acts of terror in the name of religion? Yes. But when you have factual evidence based upon a solid scholarly hermeneutic process and criticism of a holy text, why do you not accept that it can be proven that those who committ these acts of terror are not really ‘of’ the religious group to which they lay claim?
Again, please clarify how either one of you feel that there is no ‘common ground’ evidence by which we can measure if one is accurately living in a way which reflects the teaching of a religous text.
Arthur
says...Pine, it seems less and less like it’s me missing the point.
Arthur
says...Let me rephrase that: it seems less and less like it’s me and John Evo who are missing the point.
Pine
says...Arthur:
You said: “I can pick up the Bible as well as you can and, to judge from history, I can either pick any one of thirty thousand flavors of Christianity or I can make up my own.”
My response is that you cannot ‘pick any one of thirty thousand flavors of Christianity’ or ‘make up my(your) own.’ This is a false dichotomy. Option 3 would be reading the Bible and applying the proper hermeneutical processes alongside some scholarly textual criticism in order to determine what the Bible actually teaches. You can compare this to the teachings of any division within Christianity you like, however the Bible will still record what the Bible records.
In this discussion we have quoted each other thousands of times. So obviously you believe that 1. words have meaning and that 2. others can accurately judge the meaning of words and should arrive at the same conclusion about them when they do. What hypocrosy and hogwash to try to sell us on the idea that we can “never know” what the Bible actually says because people have been wrong about it before.
Arthur
says...Jesus Christ. The field is yours, Pine. I’m sorry I mistook this for a rational discussion as long as I did.