Americans and Religion

[Jester]

Anyway, Fundie had a rather unique outlook on why the Bible is credible. He claimed that statistical analysis of the Bible was sufficient to support its claims. The argument is something like, "The probability that the different authors of the Bible, working independently, could have written the same thing is sufficiently low that the events they describe most likely happened." I don't know if when he says 'Bible' he means the Old Testament, New Testament, or both.

:blink:

-Jester

[Nystul]

Religious or not, a person who only "does the right thing" out of fear of punishment is not a morally straight person at all. One needs a stronger philosophy than that to even begin entering the realm of strong character. Even the most slimy, immoral person in the world will obey the law if they feel that the risks of breaking such law is not justified by the rewards they could gain by doing so.

[kandrathe]

Truthiness:
Fundamentalist: "My belief is true and absolute. Therefore, all evidence must be interpreted in a way that supports my belief."

Beliefs dictate evidence.

Truth:
Skeptic: "My beliefs are dictated by evidence. The evidence will be analyzed and logical inferences will be made."

Evidence dictates beliefs.

Well, the fundie was certainly narrow minded for trying to make facts fit where they won't. But in a way you are being equally narrow minded in limiting your reality to physical evidence. There is much about this universe, both macro- and microscopic that you will never perceive.

For example, reality might have begun exactly 25 seconds ago, but I wouldn't know that and it's not very likely since there is absolutely nothing that indicated it did. But did the universe just spontaneously pop into existence some 16 billion years ago? Maybe, and it makes for some interesting discussions and guesses. So how is it different for you to believe the high priests of cosmology or physics when they give their sermons on the age of the universe? Have you ever seen a quark? Me either.

[Zippyy]

But in a way you are being equally narrow minded in limiting your reality to physical evidence. There is much about this universe, both macro- and microscopic that you will never perceive.

For example, reality might have begun exactly 25 seconds ago, but I wouldn't know that and it's not very likely since there is absolutely nothing that indicated it did. But did the universe just spontaneously pop into existence some 16 billion years ago? Maybe, and it makes for some interesting discussions and guesses.

I agree that the scenarios you describe are interesting and very fun to toss around. Regardless, all they amount to is academic mind-games.

Am I narrow-minded by basing reality on things that are proven to be real? I don't think so. Are there things in the univerise that humanity will never observe? Probably. I enjoy speculating about those things as much as you do.

I'd be happy to debate that the universe could not possibly have sprung into existance 25 seconds ago, if you like. And perhaps introduce you to the grand concept of falsifiability. :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

I agree that the scenarios you describe are interesting and very fun to toss around. Regardless, all they amount to is academic mind-games.

Am I narrow-minded by basing reality on things that are proven to be real? I don't think so. Are there things in the univerise that humanity will never observe? Probably. I enjoy speculating about those things as much as you do.

I'd be happy to debate that the universe could not possibly have sprung into existance 25 seconds ago, if you like. And perhaps introduce you to the grand concept of falsifiability. :)

Actually, a number of fundamental questions are not falsifiable. Among these are the existence of an exterior universe. Solipsism is a viable (but boring) world view. The fundamental assumptions that each of us use are not based on logic or truth, they are based on emotion and perception. While we can give arguments why our individual world view is more tenable than someone else's, these arguments are a priory. Where logic comes in is to determine the consequences of our assumptions. If these consequences are grotesque, then the assumptions are probably poor (I include in this category things like 'fossilized light'). If the consequences include contradictions, then the assumptions are very likely wrong. However, there is nothing per se that excludes a universe containing paradoxes.

The primary reason to prefer the scientific explanations to the theological ones when discussing the universe is that science seems to work. Cars run, bridges stand, cakes bake. Religious predictions, on the other hand, are right no more than random statistics would predict they are right. It is not so much that one world view is more correct as that it is more useful.

But, ultimately, if we exist at all (also not provable except for oneself), what we believe is all assumption.

--Pete

[Zippyy]

Hi Pete,

Actually, a number of fundamental questions are not falsifiable. Among these are the existence of an exterior universe.

As I understand it, falsifiability only applies to statements or claims; not questions. If you were to say, "Is there an exterior universe?" it would be a perfectly valid question. It would just have no correct answer other than "We can't know." But if you were to say, "There is an exterior universe," it would be a logical fallacy because there is no avenue to prove it false.

Also, I don't think a thing must be falsifiable for it to be true. I only assert that most non-falsifiable claims are totally unnecessary hypotheses.

The fundamental assumptions that each of us use are not based on logic or truth, they are based on emotion and perception. While we can give arguments why our individual world view is more tenable than someone else's, these arguments are a priory.

Not all priories are created equally. Besides, I think it is absurd to insist that no one makes assumptions based on logic.

It is not so much that one world view is more correct as that it is more useful.

In your post you seem to be saying that:
A- There is no such thing as evidence because any inferences drawn from this evidence are subject to "B"
B- All world-views are equally valid, some are just more "useful"
C- Zippyy is a solipsist.

Answer: None of the above. But what do I know? Everything I say is based on emotion, and not logic, right?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have noted my use of the word "falsifiability" and launched through a litany of philosophic words and phrases mostly detached from my original post.

[kandrathe]

... But what do I know? Everything I say is based on emotion, and not logic, right?
...

The Christians are using logic too. I was just saying that to deny the metaphysical because one cannot sense it is being a tad closed minded. Christians believe in that when Christ said "I am the son of the living God" it is truth. They have logical (and spiritual) reasons to believe what he said was accurate, that the apostles witnessed it and historical records documented Christ's actions somewhat accurately in the New Testament as well as other historical Roman, Syrian, Greek, Egyptian and Jewish documents of that time.

Others believe (although they probably have not seen it for themselves) that someone has detected echoes of a big bang that might indicate the age of the universe. It seems more plausible to them, because they can comprehend it. They believe it is true, because it makes more sense in their worldview where scientists observe the known reality and try to figure out how it got here. They have faith in sciences' ability to answer their questions about the nature of reality.

Christianity might not make sense to them, or other atheists, but these people believe that there is something other than just this physical observable reality. Not because they've seen it, but because they've been told about it by people they believe have seen it.

edited: to make more 3rd person.

[Zippyy]

Kandrathe, since you are putting words into my mouth and insisting that I believe things which I do not, I'm stepping out of this conversation.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, since you are putting words into my mouth and insisting that I believe things which I do not, I'm stepping out of this conversation.

I probably misunderstood. Insisted?

[eppie]

The Christians are using logic too.

Maybe a single christian does this, because of the way his society around him is.
In most religious countries, be they christian, muslim, hindu or whatever normal people never even meet atheists, they never even meet people that don't agree with them. For them it is simply unbelievable to think that there is no God, just because everybody else thinks the same.
When the government (like Iran, but also the US) starts to get involved as well, even for a person that is always questioning everything it becomes very very hard not to believe in a God.

Your comments about atheists believing in a big bang, which they didn't witness themselves firsthand, and so calling this a believe as well, is a bit a too simple way of looking at this.
Some other things why I (personally) don't believe in God is that many things that in the ages were said by the church as being true, have been proven to be wrong, and this is a continuing process. And of course one can say that what the church says has nothing to do with there being a God. True, but then why go to church, why prohibit gay marriages, why offer animals, why say women should wear burqas etc. etc.

I stick with the science part, that only on the part of the proof that there is or is not a God has not given an answer yet, but for the rest it is what helps us advance. Religion keeps pulling us back.

It has in this thread already been remarked by someone that morals are anyway a human invention, so there goes the second to last reason that religion would have a purpose. The last one is the comfort people get in believing that their deceased loves ones are waiting for them in a better place.

[kandrathe]

Maybe a single christian does this, because of the way his society around him is. In most religious countries, be they christian, muslim, hindu or whatever normal people never even meet atheists, they never even meet people that don't agree with them. For them it is simply unbelievable to think that there is no God, just because everybody else thinks the same. When the government (like Iran, but also the US) starts to get involved as well, even for a person that is always questioning everything it becomes very very hard not to believe in a God.

Yeah, people are easier to understand when you discriminate against them as a whole group. A single Christian can be like Mother Teresa, but as a whole they form scarey groups like "Focus on the Family" that fight against ideas like gay marriage. I think you are over generalizing the influence and power of fundamentalism in Iran. Most of it is a populist extremist nationalism represented through theocracy in response to bungled interference by the US in their sovereignty. If we focused on healing that rift the propensity for the people to support the extremists would wane (I hope). Again, though, you are assuming the masses of people are ignorantly following like a herd of cows. What percentage of religious people are well informed of their beliefs?

Your comments about atheists believing in a big bang, which they didn't witness themselves firsthand, and so calling this a believe as well, is a bit a too simple way of looking at this.

Sure, it's simple. But so is pointing at a "Fundie" that believes in the literal interpretation of the bible as representative of 2000 years of Christian theology. There is junk science, and there is junk theology. For both, discernment of what is untrue is the challenge.

Some other things why I (personally) don't believe in God is that many things that in the ages were said by the church as being true, have been proven to be wrong, and this is a continuing process. And of course one can say that what the church says has nothing to do with there being a God. True, but then why go to church, why prohibit gay marriages, why offer animals, why say women should wear burqas etc. etc.

Just as in science when someone publishes known false research for personal gain, fraud happens in any human endeavor. Although, conclusions based upon scientific observation can be disproved, but disproving someone that says "God told me to destroy the infidels." is nearly impossible. Science is easier in that regard. Although, it's not like it's one or the other. There are plenty of people who are informed by both.

I stick with the science part, that only on the part of the proof that there is or is not a God has not given an answer yet, but for the rest it is what helps us advance. Religion keeps pulling us back.

And, nuclear weapons have propelled us forward. It's not a matter of labelling an entire branch of philosophy as "backward" and others as "forward". Each of us needs to endeavor every day to make wise and intelligent decisions, in our science, in our morality, and in how we treat each other. How about we just start each day deciding not to blow up our fellow humans?

It has in this thread already been remarked by someone that morals are anyway a human invention, so there goes the second to last reason that religion would have a purpose. The last one is the comfort people get in believing that their deceased loves ones are waiting for them in a better place.

This last part is merely opinions, whether informed or not would require lengthy debate.

[eppie]

Y There is junk science, and there is junk theology. For both, discernment of what is untrue is the challenge.Just as in science when someone publishes known false research for personal gain, fraud happens in any human endeavor. Although, conclusions based upon scientific observation can be disproved, but disproving someone that says "God told me to destroy the infidels." is nearly impossible. Science is easier in that regard. Although, it's not like it's one or the other. There are plenty of people who are informed by both.And, nuclear weapons have propelled us forward. It's not a matter of labelling an entire branch of philosophy as "backward" and others as "forward". Each of us needs to endeavor every day to make wise and intelligent decisions, in our science, in our morality, and in how we treat each other. How about we just start each day deciding not to blow up our fellow humans?
This last part is merely opinions, whether informed or not would require lengthy debate.

I was not pointing at single statements made by scientists or relugious people.
Generally speaking the aim of science is to find and investigate new phenomena or simpler, new ways of doing things better, cleaner, cheaper etc.
Religion is only taking steps back. Religion has (despite the majority of the world is still religious) to defend itsself continously, because most claims (apart from the not provable or unprovable fact of a presence of God) have been proven to be absolute jibberish. Religion (so not the possible presence of a God) has for this reason continued to change the definition of what is a God and what does he do or know or influence.

You can see this in the most progressive countries. There is a lot more possibility for debate.
In the most conservative countries (nowadays often muslim countries, but I don't want to single out this particular religion in any way) like Iran, Afghanistan etc. it is still widespread common knowledge that you should wear a Burqa (as female) because that is how religion wants it. (in one way comparable with the fact that God says that you should go to church). It is not for nothing that these silly things are abandoned by progressive christians or muslims.

[kandrathe]

I was not pointing at single statements made by scientists or relugious people.
Generally speaking the aim of science is to find and investigate new phenomena or simpler, new ways of doing things better, cleaner, cheaper etc.
Religion is only taking steps back. Religion has (despite the majority of the world is still religious) to defend itsself continously, because most claims (apart from the not provable or unprovable fact of a presence of God) have been proven to be absolute jibberish. Religion (so not the possible presence of a God) has for this reason continued to change the definition of what is a God and what does he do or know or influence.

You can see this in the most progressive countries. There is a lot more possibility for debate.
In the most conservative countries (nowadays often muslim countries, but I don't want to single out this particular religion in any way) like Iran, Afghanistan etc. it is still widespread common knowledge that you should wear a Burqa (as female) because that is how religion wants it. (in one way comparable with the fact that God says that you should go to church). It is not for nothing that these silly things are abandoned by progressive christians or muslims.

But, just like science, the press zeroes in on the crack pots. The ones who are meaningfully making a difference hardly get noticed. And, I disagree with the idea that "Religion is only taking steps back." This is your own bias showing. "Religion" has been a consistent and universal human pilosophical pursuit for all recorded history (10-15 thousand years). You could just as easily say "Aesthetics is holding us back" Damn the pursuit of beauty. There are many things that are taking us steps back, and you don't need religion as your whipping boy. Fundamental Islam seems to be your focus, but again that extreme minority is getting all the press. I don't believe Stalin was a religious man, nor Hitler, nor was religious zeal used (except to kill them e.g. the Jews) in any other the recent genocide. Perhaps Darfur is an example of Islamicists persecuting Christians. In fact, if you add up the atheist Stalin and Pol Pots purges in the name of progress, then atheists have been doing most of the killing this last century. Fascists take a close 2nd place.

You are also confusing progressive with progress, at least positive progress. We are entering into a phase (at least in this country) where tolerance of every deviance is mandated, meaning that there is no truth and those who stand for a moral truth are ridiculed or jailed. We cannot debate what is right or wrong anymore, since everything is relative and true to each individual. And in a way, I can sympathize with the islamofacist terrorists since I don't want a Justin Timberlake, Britany Spears, Christina Aguilera, Madonna world either. I'm just not willing to asuage my outrage by bombing innocents. So instead I'd rather put my energies into a rational and reasonable moral compromise between Kabul, or Provo, Utah and the Las Vegas Strip, or Reguliersdwarsstraat, Amsterdam. Some people need to lighten up a little, and others need to stop wagging their T and A's around so much. Get out of the Burqa yes, but not into a thong bikini maybe.

[Rinnhart]

OTOH, I've found atheists to be generally arrogant as hell when it comes to their "enlightened" belief that they are smarter than religious people solely on the basis that they are not believing in something that can't be proven and requires an act of faith

Dude, acts of faith?

I believe that when I die, there will be nothing. I believe that when things happen, good or bad, it's a fluke, luck, pure cosmic chance over which I have no control or influence. There is no grand plan, there is no great architect; there is only the slime of humanity clinging to a grain of sand sailing through the void.

And if I'm wrong? I go to Hell.

. As far as "closemindedness", do atheists believe that there is at least a small possibility that there is a god? They do NOT. That is also closemindedness. Those who do think that it is at least a remote possibility are not true atheists.
-A

Dude.


Edit: I do believe I am 100% right, but I do not dismiss the rights of others to believe whatever they want.

[Rinnhart]

LOL (nt)

[Merlinios]

Religious or not, a person who only "does the right thing" out of fear of punishment is not a morally straight person at all. One needs a stronger philosophy than that to even begin entering the realm of strong character. Even the most slimy, immoral person in the world will obey the law if they feel that the risks of breaking such law is not justified by the rewards they could gain by doing so.

Hrm, I think I want to explore this. Hypothetically, let's say there is one correct set of morals. Bob lives in a country where the law is identical to them. He follows the law to the letter, but only because he's afraid of punishment. Larry lives in a somewhat corrupt society, and must periodically deviate from this one correct morality in order to survive (let's say he....has to steal bread to eat). Or, in a less hypothetical form, is it more ethical to perform nothing but moral actions with "bad" motivation or to have a clean conscience but be forced into immorality?

Along the same lines, there are those who would say that by your reasoning, no one is moral, that all "morality" stems from either expected gratification or fear of retribution. But that may be a semantic issue on some level.

--me

[kandrathe]

...

Along the same lines, there are those who would say that by your reasoning, no one is moral, that all "morality" stems from either expected gratification or fear of retribution. But that may be a semantic issue on some level.

--me

For the sake of the argument I would offer up at least an enlightening link to clear up some of the sematic confusion as it relates to the philosophy of morality;

Fallacies of Egoism and Altruism and the Fundamental Principle of Morality

But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality....To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed it is exactly its counterpart. It is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others. -- Thomas Jefferson