Someone must have been reading some of my comment threads attentively, because this looks familiar:
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
Someone must have been reading some of my comment threads attentively, because this looks familiar:
I'll be drunk within 10 minutes of talking to most of my co-workers, if this were part of a drinking game. Although the atheists are starting to speak up a lot more.
I wonder if one would be closed minded if they don't accept the possibility of Zeus exists or Thor or the other pantheon of super powered invisible beings people have thought worthy of worship.
Not too well related, but a poll for your enjoyment. Keep it up, PZ! http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/14273/
Isamu (@#2): Yes. The quality of open-mindedness is not strained; it falleth like a...no, wait, sorry.
The quality of open-mindedness requires that every possibility, no matter how outlandish or counterfactual, be entertained as not just possible, but plausible. For example, if you blindly accept the dogma that 2+2=4 then you are closed-minded.
Bigot!!!!
I love this! Occasionally in my personal life I've gotten the "you're as bad as they are" remark when bemoaning not just religion but "spirituality," which seems to me a result of an (adolescent) worldview that sees opposing forces as one and the same, with the only responsible position being to not care at all. Thanks slacker '90s!
I was blind, but now I see the Bingo. Why, after seeing all of these rational, well thought-out, new arguments I have decided to renounce atheism and follow the teachings of Kanaloa, Polynesian god of death and squid.
"Imaginary Sky Pixie" is more succinct that "imaginary magic man in the sky." I may start using it.
Everyone is copying you, PZ. Someone stole your logo and mantra for their own CD! Based on the cover art and title, I would have bet for sure you produced this:
http://www.amazon.com/Exterminate-Everything-Around-Restricts-Master/dp…
Mary is the most important person in your faith? What about Jesus? Am I missing something here? Someone of faith please fill me in.
Gotta say this bit o' illogic jargon was tough to wrap my head around... kinda like those iron link puzzles.
They forgot, "I can show that God could exist, and you can't disprove him. I win."
Which gets to the heart of the rancidity of "liberal Christianity."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I think we need to start calling these people New Testament fundamentalists. They ARE fundamentalists; they take everything in the New Testament literally.
What do others think of this meme?
What happened to the square that reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"?
There needs to be a square expressing incredulity towards evolution. Maybe something like: "Micro-evolution is science, but macro-evolution is just another religion."
I would say it is not accurate. Liberal Christians vary in how much of the NT they accept as literal. Some don't believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, yet still consider themselves Christians. Baffling.
There are only two blocks on that board that as far as I'm concerned, are no where near the truth, third row down and second from the right, and the bottom right corner.
The idea that Catholicism and the church in general, remembering that in the medieval era the Catholic Church was the only church, the idea that it has ever been pro woman is patently absurd. Because if it were true, then where are the ordained women? Where are the female bishops? Where are the female popes? There are none. They may venerate a lone female as being holy, but for their entire history the church has been an all boys club. Not only that, but they don't really care for the rights of the female. The church opposes above all else reproductive rights, and I get the impression they even oppose them for men as well.
On another note, two across and four down, changing the church from the inside is impossible, unless you are the pope. The whole system is set up as a theocracy, one that is controlled by the solitary figure at the top; the position that is thankfully becoming more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world.
On the other hand, the types of behaviour suggested in the majority of those blocks, I have seen exhibited by atheists of many different stripes. And by a few individuals on this blog as well. So a lot of those blocks are fair characterizations of a good number of atheists, not just here but at a number of other websites as well.
I was attempting to date an Episcopalian that freely recognizes that much of the bible is myth and not historically accurate, but she still insisted that God is love. I never quite figured out where she was pulling that from, but I had a good idea (And no, I didn't stick around long enough to see that place).
But saying "Imaginary Sky Pixie" is fun!
The big problem with the Liberal Christians (aside from some of the great complaints PZ has filed [see 'Theology is a Decietful Strategy']) is that they dont realize that their whole 'belief' system is hollow and empty.
Fundementalist Christians, as wrong and as crazy as they may be, are at least internally consistant: the bible says what it means. The liberal Christians interpret the bible in vague, metaphorical, changing ways to fit their lifestyle, which is all well and good, except that, well, they've added a large, unneccesary component called religion.
A good example of what I mean comes from the old philosophical defense of inductive logic; "All swans are white." People used to think that this proved inductive logic to consistently hold, because even though they haven't seen every swan, every swan that they had seen had been white. Until they reached Australia, and they saw black swans, ruining the proposition "all swans are white." Except a small group tried to defend the proposition, saying "All swans ARE white, and if it isn't white then it isn't a swan!" ....... I'll let you see the gaping problem with that last statement on your own; think about it.
Anyway, to bring everything together: Liberal Christians read "All swans are white" in the bible, then when science and reality give us a black swan, its the Liberal Christians crying "All swans ARE white, and if it isn't white it isn't a swan." (Fundementalists will just lie about the black swan and try to cover it up)
Zeus or Thor seem to be more plausible than evolution is nowadays as far as evidence is concerned:
Icons of Evolution - Dr. Jonathan Wells
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=45ea15a3096c765bf392
Mike G (#15):
A quote from Mike G in #207 from the "Will we ever stop running away from the source of the problem?" thread: In my opinion, when it comes to critiquing religion, scientists should stay the hell out of the debate.
There should be a bingo game for people like Mike G who thinks everyone should suck up to Christian idiots, and who think scientists should shut up about religious insanity.
Another quote from Mike G: they need to be shown that a compromise can be reached between belief in god (including belief in Jesus as the saviour) and what science has to say.
Mike G calls their man-god "Jesus as the saviour". How nice and respectful and stupid.
@12: This is liberal christianity bingo... a group which ranges from the devout but nice to closet atheists who want a social club, and like stained glass and organ music. My Anglican congregation was different, and the priest who taught my confirmation class believed in evolution and not in hell. I only stopped going because after my high school chemistry teacher explained the scientific method, I didn't believe any of it anymore.
Some of these squares don't sound particularly liberal to me. I think "what about the abolitionists?" is a perfectly valid response to the claim that religious influence is universally bad, but it's ridiculous to claim that atheists don't know theology... I think a lot of us know a lot more than a lot of believers, which is a big part of why we're atheists. The more I read about Christianity (and especially how it relates to all the other resurrected sun god mystery cults), the more unbelievable it all sounds.
(.)(.)
I am a relative newcomer here (thanks again for the new tag lines) and would like to apply to become an Ilk. Is there an initiation ar something? Also would someone explain woot to me? The boobies make me laugh.
Really? More plausible? Wow...
Perhaps you can point to some of this mountain of evidence about Zeus or Thor, because there must be lots of it out there to make it "more plausible" than evolution.
Thanks in advance.
Zen and the art of blog commenting.
Wow, this is hysterical. Thanks for that, PZ, you made my morning.
OT: A short while ago, PZ linked to a funny chart that showed what happens when you combine Religion and Politics. Can't seem to find the post or the chart. Any help please?
Fundementalist Christians, as wrong and as crazy as they may be, are at least internally consistant: the bible says what it means.
Well, I think that's a bunch of nonsense. The forces of fate and marriage required me to attend a nephew's baptism two weeks ago. It was a Baptist church out in the sticks, south of Dayton. The preacher and his spittle held forth at great length about moral degeneracy. Then he told a story about a visit to Ken Ham's creationist museum and testified to his pure, unspoiled belief in biblical literalism. Then my nephew and the preacher disappeared behind a curtain, then reemerged, my nephew in the preacher's arms, and the preacher wearing rubber hip-waders (I am not making this up). The kid got dunked and a few more words were spoken about the importance of handing out Chick tracts without worrying that others would think you're queer - not in the gay sense, he emphatically stated, but in the peculiar sense. Because gays are going to hell. End of service.
My brother in law, who is a cretin, sheepishly told me that at least the man really practices what he believes, and really takes it seriously.
Look, we get one shot on this earth. A liberal christian who doesn't take Christianity all that seriously or literally is much, much, much preferable than a bible-slapping snake-juggling drowner of small children who really, really means it. The extent to which he really means it is the extent to which he's an idiot. Those who mean it less seriously are less idiotic.
The quality of their thinking may not be any better, but they are preferable as people and make better citizens and allies. Very easy to mock these words, but at the end of the day we have go out and vote and we want people voting for politicians who will enact the policies we like.
I love this bingo card. I'm going to print one out for when I'm playing cards with the family this weekend. I bet I'll have a bingo before I finish my first drink.
@Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum:
I don't have a similar experience with liberal theists. Trying to get them to actually commit to something is like trying to pick up jello with novocaine-numbed fingers. The ones I talk to constantly redefine every word they use mid-conversation.
@21
My Anglican congregation was different
I think the point of this bingo card is that, as long as your church supports the view that supernatural beings exist, then, no, your congregation is NOT different. No matter if they're nice, love Teh Gays, think women should be presidents, don't believe in hell, give out gluten-free vegan cookies ... they still believe in ghosts, which is an impediment to evidence-based reasoning.
Fundementalists will just lie about the black swan and try to cover it up
actually, don't they just shoot them all and burn them?
Re #18: "Fundamentalist Christians, as wrong and as crazy as they may be, are at least internally consistant: the bible says what it means." Actually, they SAY that, but they don't really mean it. Fundies are almost as "pick and choosist" as liberal Christians.
The only way to maintain that the Bible is literally true is to pretend that certain passages simply don't mean what they clearly say. Just to cite a few examples: the passage where Satan takes Jesus to the top of a high mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms" of the Earth is impossible unless the Earth is flat. I don't think any fundies truly believe that there is a dome in the sky holding back water, and that God makes it rain by opening windows in the dome. They will tell you that that passage is a metaphor, but there is no evidence at all that it wasn't originally meant literally. There are innumerable similar passages, now taken to be metaphor or poetic description, but which were certainly once taken literally. Probably some of them actually were metaphor or poetry, but how to decide? There are three descriptions of the death of Saul, and two of the death of Judas. Reading the attempts to reconcile those passages is very amusing. Fundies who cite the OT about homosexuality somehow find a way to get around the pesky passages that would inconvenience them personally. Ask a fundie to explain why an omniscient being needs to ask Adam and Eve questions in the Garden that he would have known the answer to; there is nothing in the text to suggest that the questions were not genuine. It goes on and on.
All that said, I more or less agree with your main point, that fundies do indeed believe in something very passionately, which most liberal Christians kinda don't. However, what they say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things.
#16 Fred
"I never quite figured out where she was pulling that from, but I had a good idea (And no, I didn't stick around long enough to see that place)."
That place is the imagination. A very creative imagination I might add. And the thing about religion is that there is no requirement for it to be consistent with the facts and what we know of the real world, it simply has to be internally consistent. But for those people like us, who prefer to remain firmly planted in the real world and surrounded by the facts, it is going to appear crazy. Compared to the real world it is going to look like complete nonsense, but I think there is a reason for that; it is a form of escapism.
I have a question for BobC.
Are you ever going to stop using straw men to attack those people who don't agree with your vitriolic hatred? Are you ever going to say anything that is even in the slightest productive? Are you ever going to argue logically rather than emotionally?
I'm not even going to bother trying to argue with you, because what is the point in arguing with someone who is as rigidly entrenched in dogma as you? Such people don't have open minds; they are xenophobes. You are such a person BobC, and it is why I really pity you.
That poster should be labeled "Aaahh, Liberal christian Bonkers!" And the religionists wonder why they are subjected to so much ridicule by the rational minority. Let Bugs have the last word; "Boy, what maroons!"
Mike G, your "In my opinion, when it comes to critiquing religion, scientists should stay the hell out of the debate." from the other thread is disgraceful. You want scientists to shut up about religion. Do you want to try to justify why you want to censor scientists? Or would you like to apologize to the entire scientific community for trying to muzzle them.
BINGO!
@28
I was just stating my problem with Liberal Christians; I wasn't saying that they were worse that the fundementalists. I want to agree with what you say about siding with the liberal Christians to get better policies and elected officials (though, this is about impossible with the inane, outdated, corrupt U.S. political system), but I dont like the idea of empowering their ideology simply for strategic purposes. The long term strategy ought to be to win them over to our side, rather than continually moving towards the opposition.
@32
My simple response is that Fundementalist Christians are stupid and ignorant. Yes, all of them. If you believe in a talking snake, Santa Jesus, the power of prayer, etc, those are qualifying conditions for stupidity and ignorance.
There was another one that got left out: "We may disagree, but we have to respect one another's beliefs." (The obvious response to that being, of course,"I respect your right to believe anything you like, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if they're laugh-out-loud stupid.")
I'll state this once and only once BobC, because I do not want your hatred to further contaminate this thread. And if you don't get it this time, then my opinion of you as being dogmatic and close-minded will be confirmed.
Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion. If you think that it is, then you misunderstand what both science and religion are.
I agree, but you left out Mr. God in your list of beliefs. Anyone who believes there's a fairy hiding the clouds (all theists believe this) is not much better than the religious extremists.
Very nice, but it's a shame that it doesn't have the Stalin/Hilter/Pol Pot/Commie/Nazi argument.
"All swans ARE white, and if it isn't white then it isn't a swan!" ....... I'll let you see the gaping problem with that last statement on your own; think about it.
Sorry, I don't see the problem. It just means that "white" is being included in the definition of "swan". We are just talking about a name for an animal, and it seems that "swan" does indeed imply that it is white, since one never says, "I saw a white swan yesterday", yet a black swan requires the color modifier, otherwise you would assume the swan to be white. So, even though they are the same species but with different color feathers, one is "a swan" and the other is "a black swan".
Anyway, as for the bingo card, it really should have that bible quote they are always throwing around about "the fool says in his heart there is no god". That always seems to come up in these kinds of threads.
Love it. That is all.
For those who enjoy the strawman bingo, there are also versions on the internets for anti-choice, anti-feminism, and fat hatred "arguments", to name a few.
If you get a BINGO, do you receive a consecrated cracker as a prize?
So when a religious idiot makes a false scientific claim (for example: Jebus became a zombie) scientists should just shut up about it.
You're a big fan of censorship. You would love living in a theocracy.
What happened to the square that reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"?
No, no, that's the fundie bingo card. Entirely different.
It's only a matter of time before someone creates an atheist bingo card. Then we're screwed.
Mike G, #39: "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion. If you think that it is, then you misunderstand what both science and religion are."
Do people come back from the dead?
Is it possible to put pairs of every species on a wooden boat, have five miles deep of water show up out of nowhere in particular, have the boat float (and none of the animals die) for six weeks of rain, and have all the animals return to their places of origin, none of them the wiser?
Do donkeys or snakes talk?
Is it possible to turn wheat flour into human flesh while wearing a dress and saying a particular incantation?
Seems to me science has a lot to say about particular claims of religions.
By Jove! I think (s)he's got it!
Lee Picton #23
Woot is sort of like BFF.
For you and anyone new to Pharyngula, open "A Taste of Pharyngula the complete list", at the top left margin. Many scientific posts and some of PZ's best essays. Also, look at "Commenters" and "Dungeon" at the top of the page.
I come for the posts, and I stay for the comments.
Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion. If you think that it is, then you misunderstand what both science and religion are.
I see no reason why science shouldn't study religion. If you're saying it can't, or shouldn't for some ethical reason, then it is you who misunderstands something very badly.
Mike G,
You keep making sweeping claims about science and religion, that when examined turn out to be unsupported ("science is not a forum for debating matters of religion", mockery will just drive believers deeper into their beliefs) or just plain wrong - like your claim that the Catholic Church has stopped claiming that miracles occur. Why?
Mike G, Scientists have the right to say the Christian God (and every other sky fairy ever invented) has never performed any miracle, has never created anything, and has never invented anything. If a Christian liberal says evolution was God's way of creating life, or if a Christian fundy says God created every species magically, a scientist has the right to say those Christians are full of shit.
All gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems, and that's why your "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion" is bullshit.
Don't you think that putting the imaginary before sky pixie is a bit unnecessary? Not that I'm ruling out the possibility of real sky pixies, mind you. I don't want to be accused of being close-minded.
Larry #54
What you said.
There are innumerable similar passages, now taken to be metaphor or poetic description, but which were certainly once taken literally.
It is all metaphor and that was probably the original understanding and only recently (due probably to whatshisname's search for Troy) that we've started considering it to be literal.
Prof. Jerry Lettvin gave an interesting lecture many years ago about interpreting the story of Perseus and the Medusa as a metaphor describing the characteristics of the 3 major cephalopods in the Mediterranean. He felt that this was how people retained and passed one huge quantities of data in the time before writing. That metaphors and stories are memory aids and more easily retained than just "dry facts". I think the same is true of the bible, it is a collection os stories to teach morality. Each story is seperate even though may have the same characters. When these were oral, they were probably never told sequentially and all at once, so no one cared about consistency. Only since they've been compiled into a book can we find the inconsistencies and contradictions. But that is what tells us this is the work of man, not god. Surely the "word of god" would be perfectly consistent. If the bible-ists want to use it as their moral guidebook, fine, there are many fine moral and ethical teachings in there, just stop calling it the "word of god".
Zeus does exist. For your mountain of evidence, I suggest Olympus.
I actually went to church this weekend. My boyfriend is religious and goes to a very liberal church in San Francisco. I actually found the sermon meaningful (being about shutting up and listening to people and giving them the resources to solve their own problems), once I mentally removed all the Jesus.
The same sermon could have been read into Dickens or any good writer, and the value wasn't really in the text but in the minister's interpretation of it.
I think there is some value in getting talks that make you think about ethics and the way you behave without shoving 2000 year old mythology down your throat. There is some benefit in group self-reflection. I don't see why it needs Christianity, (or islam, etc) though. In my opinion, the mythology only ties down the message and weakens it by muddying the water with archaisms and contradictions.
Maybe I'm weird, but speaking as a liberal Christian, I wish the Democratic party would STOP catering to the religious.
#48
"Seems to me science has a lot to say about particular claims of religions."
That is religion intruding into scientific territory. Science isolates itself to measurable empirical matters. Religion in general is concerned with other things, normally those things that are beyond the scope of science, e.g. god, the soul, the supernatural; those things that fall under the religious definition of spirituality. Some religions do try to attach and make relevant to their spiritual teachings claims that can theoretically be judged by science, but like I said it is only then that religion intrudes into the domain of science.
There are some religions that make no measurable empirical claims, Buddhism being one such religion, (it has no creation story for one thing). And it is of my opinion that all religions should follow that model.
The point of the above being that I think there is some value in Liberal Christianity, while there is none on fundamentalism which revels in the archaisms and contradictions. I still think they take things too literally, but if it achieves the purpose of making people think a little before they go out and act like an asshole, it does have a function in society.
BobC: All gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems, and that's why your "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion" is bullshit.
Are aesthetic problems, problems of how should we live, scientific problems? The meta problem of how we develop aesthetics may be scientific, but it seems to me that the problem itself is not a scientific problem of objective, global, reality, but one of subjective, local, reality.
That means that there is a space there of "problems" that the religious pose that are not scientific problems. Now, religion may not be the proper method to answer questions of literature, ethics and architecture; but then again, science can only answer part of these questions (the meta part, the engineering part).
Religion is awfully wrong when it tries to answer objective questions; but it is merely a primitive way to answer subjective questions.
What, frog, in your mind is the distinction between explaining the origin and psychology of aesthetic judgments and this "meta problem" of which you speak?
As for the rest of your post, it seems to me that you're saying that religion can't offer an incorrect answer to questions which do not have incorrect answers. That is not a vindication or justification of religion, it is an indictment of the question as asinine.
I feel stupid. I don't under stand what's funny about this. How would you even play? I don't get it.
MikeG: That is religion intruding into scientific territory. Science isolates itself to measurable empirical matters. Religion in general is concerned with other things, normally those things that are beyond the scope of science, e.g. god, the soul, the supernatural; those things that fall under the religious definition of spirituality. Some religions do try to attach and make relevant to their spiritual teachings claims that can theoretically be judged by science, but like I said it is only then that religion intrudes into the domain of science.
You do know what empirical claims are, don't you Mike? God, the soul, the supernatural are all claims that are objective truths about the world - a "soul" is a thing, or is not, it has attribute and should have measurable effects on the world for it to be a real object.
I think what you're reaching for is actually non-objective things, like whether a painting is pretty, and how you should place the couches in your living room. But that pretty much eliminates all of the Abrahmic religions, and sure does cut down most everything outside a few branches of Buddhism and certain aspects of Navajo religion.
Somehow I feel that isn't the result you want, to reduce religion questions to Feng Shui.
All gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems, and that's why your "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion" is bullshit.
Bob,
It is bullshit, unless Mike is saying something other than the plain meaning of those words, but not because "all gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems," because that's certainly not true. I guess I take you to mean that ancient peoples didn't understand the natural world, and so populated it with a cast of characters to explain phenomena in terms of intentional agents. While they did explain (or explain away) things by appeal to the actions of spirits and deities, it is highly questionable that this was the impetus for their invention. Much more likely, the agents were already to hand and primed to be put to use in that way.
I'll put it this way: an origin myth or a cosmogony does not really "solve scientific problems." Whether it's turtles all the way down or the Earth is a raft on the cosmic sea is really a question of aesthetics as much or more than really satisfying one's curiosity: such stories were told and retold, as a form of entertainment. It just didn't have enough bearing on everyday life to merit being called problem solving. And when ancient peoples did face empirical problems with direct consequences for their livelihood, they solved them empirically, just like you and I do, albeit without the rigor we expect from the formal use of modern scientific methods.
Dustin: #63
What, frog, in your mind is the distinction between explaining the origin and psychology of aesthetic judgments and this "meta problem" of which you speak?
You got it backwards -- you are describing the meta problem. The origin and psychology of aesthetic judgments is a scientific problem -- but the practice of aesthetics is not. Any more than understanding the physics of baseball is the same thing as playing baseball; in many ways, the solution to the two problems gain you no advantage in solving the other.
As for the rest of your post, it seems to me that you're saying that religion can't offer an incorrect answer to questions which do not have incorrect answers. That is not a vindication or justification of religion, it is an indictment of the question as asinine.
No and no. It is not a vindication or justification of religion per se -- as I said, most religion seems to me at best a very primitive attempt to approach these problems. But that doesn't mean the problem is asinine. Writing a novel isn't "asinine"; the ninth symphony isn't "asinine"; only an ass would think that problems of aesthetic practice are asinine -- they are merely non-scientific.
These problems may not have objective answers, but there sure are a lot of solutions that are ugly, inconsistent, incoherent, irrational and self-destructive. Different criteria than objective truth, but there still are criteria. Ask any novelist if there are "wrong" ways to write a novel.
99% of life is subjective -- for all us; any one who doesn't recognize this reality really needs to get themselves to a psychiatrist real quick (particularly the religious). The problems of that 99% of life which isn't building bridges or calculating seasonal temperature variations, or simulating proteins, isn't asinine -- it's called life.
God: generally defined as a higher power that exists distinct and separate to the universe. The question of the existence of such a being is not something that science is equipped to answer.
Supernatural: something that is above/beyond nature. Since science isolates itself to the empirical in describing nature, how can it deal with the supernatural?
Science can not answer everything. It can not answer moral questions; it can not do politics; it can not tell us what we should do with our lives; it can't even tell us who we should love or what we should like. Science can at beast, inform us. I am simply recognizing that science is limited to certain types of questions, questions that can only be answered in a physically measurable way.
Now, do I believe that the supernatural or god exists? I'm an atheist, so of course not. But I do recognize that the question of the existence of such things can not be answered by science, or anything else for that matter, that's why I'm also an agnostic. I also believe that as nonsensical as religions tend to be, they can serve legitimate purposes.
Now as to the soul, I find agreeable the sorts of definitions that Aristotle and Epicurus provided.
I feel stupid. I don't under stand what's funny about this. How would you even play? I don't get it.
Print the card, then start reading just about any of the threads here tagged "Religion" or "atheism" or similar. Then chack off each box as you across a comment that matches. See how far you get before BINGO!
I look forward to finding articles about Francis Collins or Ken Miller in the blogosphere, and finding comments thereafter which exclaim simply:
Bingo!
And what exactly can religion answer? Nothing.
It provides no moral guidance, other than dogma. It poisons politics. If you try to run your life by it, it requires a dedication to fruitless lunacy. I certainly hope you don't use religion to tell you who to love or like.
Of course science can deal with the supernatural: by dismissing it as nonsense and refocusing reason and effort on that which is real.
Don't see a square for 'I'm praying for you.'
That's the free square in the middle. They always say that, even when they're calling you the personification of Satan.
It's not about what religion can answer, it's about what it can provide. And while there are certain places where anything it provides tends to be detrimental, such as politics and science, there are other places where its provisions are beneficial. I think the most obvious benefit for most people in is dealing with death.
Even though it is fiction it can still provide inspiration for beautiful art, much like any other fiction can. And fiction can certainly provide moral guidance. Who can deny that the story of the Shepherd and the Lion doesn't provide a valuable moral? Or what about the Boy who cried Wolf?
I'll probably get lambasted (from a number of directions)for this post, but I suppose if I were to use my own definitions I would fit the category of 'liberal christian'. But, I do think I differ from most 'liberal christians' in that I don't claim to 'believe' in anything that can't be demonstrated with reasonable certainty such as God (making me kind of agnostic). I think most of the statements made by liberal christians are poor defenses of beliefs that are indefensible. I think if any Christian is truly thoughtful and intellectually honest that they would say 'I don't know whether or not God exists' and they would see that a reasonable default position is to not believe in God rather than assuming there's some inherent value in believing in the supernatural 'sky pixies'.
Maybe I'm lying to myself and my conservative religious family/friends about me being a Christian so that I can maintain those relationships as best as possible. But intellectually the only thing that makes me feel that I can define myself as Christian is the fact that I still reserve some small degree of hope that perhaps there's more beyond this material existence, and that it's a good thing, such as that God exists and loves us and wants to provide some sort of eternal life for us that is enjoyable and somehow we're unable to completely understand everything about why things suffering exist (which is probably more of a bizarre form of abstract religous inclination rather than christianity).
But, I have no way of knowing or testing whether what I hope for is true, making my 'faith' little more than wishful thinking. I don't see having hope in the supernatural as necessary for having a purposeful meaningful life, perhaps my hope is simply the result of childhood conditioning.
Anyways, the whole point of my writing this is to say that as someone who (for now) still identifies as a liberal christian, I haven't heard a good defense (from liberal or conservative christians or so-callled 'believers in belief) for believing in something beyond the testable, and even though i feel stupid for maintaining this type of hope, I can't seem to completely get rid of it, nor am I sure that I want to.
but I suppose if I were to use my own definitions I would fit the category of 'liberal christian'.
...ours too.
I can't seem to completely get rid of it
such is the danger of indoctrination in this medieval nonsense; it tends to stick with you even when you know better.
like carrying around a lucky charm when you consciously realize it has no causal effect.
just let it go, man.
The real problem is philosophical. Medieval philosophers wrote of the "supernatural" as if it could be reached by ideas, and all too many scientists and philosophers were only too happy to grant religion that "realm" so that religion would quit interfering with science.
Above I write critically of such a "division," but to be fair, it may have been the best course at the time. It isn't any more. The fact is that we know very well that the "supernatural" that the mind supposedly reached, and which in turn "explained mind," is philosophically unsound, and scientifically wrong (we have enough reason to believe that "mind" evolved).
There is no supernatural in any meaningful sense without the "realm of ideas" being separate from the "material world." Thus, it is a realm that has long ceased to have any real intellectual meaning at all, and it only hangs on as a sop to religion.
While I am not particularly out to "fight religion" as such (I have other, better, things to do), it is still worth pointing out once in while that the "supernatural" only "has meaning" in philosophies which no longer are accepted by just about anybody--mainly because they were based on flawed "information". There is nothing inherently wrong with continuing to speak of the "supernatural" as a fictional realm, but it has no more meaning than does Tolkien's Middle Earth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
MikeG: Even though it is fiction it can still provide inspiration for beautiful art, much like any other fiction can. And fiction can certainly provide moral guidance.
So of what use is religion? If the Boy who cried Wolf gives us moral guidance, why invent jeebus? If you're going to develop a fictional structure for emotional guidance, why not use something sophisticated and interesting rather than something stupid and primitive? Of what use is religion itself, except as a primitive attempt at literature and psycho-analysis?
I'd rather read Gravities Rainbow than the ergot induced ravings of some goat herder from ancient times. And don't try to stretch the definition of religion to cover everything that's subjective -- that would be a meaningless and cheap trick.
Religion, as you describe it, is the crutch of those who can't (or won't) produce new fictions. It's totalitarian art, the ugliest kind of art, handed down by authorities. If you need to dance to the music of invisible fairies, at least have the intellectual courage to develop your own fairy-world, rather than simply plagiarizing the work of the long-dead.
So of what use is religion?
Perhaps you mean, in response to Mike:
What unique use is religion?
to which the answer is:
none.
why invent jeebus?
inscrutable control device.
again, not unique to religion.
why not use something sophisticated and interesting rather than something stupid and primitive
you're kidding, right?
take a look at literacy rates throughout history, and tell me how well something "sophisticated" would have gone over.
From #42: " It just means that "white" is being included in the definition of "swan". "
Thats the problem. Its a tautology, and therefore contains no meaningful information. Its the equivalent of saying 'All apples are apples, and if its not an apple then it isn't an apple.' It's a proposition that is, and has to be, true in every possible world, under every possible condition, and can't ever be falsified. If non-white swans aren't actually swans, then the statement "All swans are white," doesn't have any MEANINGFUL information about swans, the world, etc. Whats worse, toss in the word metaphor, and now it means whatever you want it to mean.
No, don't leave out the old testament. Anyone that doesn't believe 'every jot & tittle' of it is no true christian. When the lord opened the mouth of Balaam's Ass he wasn't just kidding around.
I must have missed something, because I would have a hard time classifying any of the remarks on the card as "Liberal" Christian. "Fundamentalist" for sure, but I don't know any Christians who consider themselves Liberals that wouldn't be embarrassed by such remarks, let alone make them themselves.
Mike G (#74) wrote:
It would be more accurate to say "I think the most obvious benefit for most COWARDS in is dealing with death."
Only cowardly gullible hopelessly stupid people believe in heaven, and they claim their heaven belief is a good thing. There's nothing good about it. The heaven belief encourages people to waste the one life they have. Also, no belief could be more idiotic. Anyone who believes in heaven is a moron. A person has to be way beyond stupid to believe they have a soul that magically flies up into the clouds after they drop dead. Another problem with this childish belief is it made 9/11 and the daily suicide bombings possible.
And Mike G calls this a benefit. What a pathetic fake atheist he is.
Or perhaps Mike G isn't an atheist at all. He sounds a lot like a fundy. On another thread he talked about the "belief in Jesus as the saviour". He sure sounds like a Christian idiot to me.
As an admittedly smug, white, libertarian, male, atheist I feel like that box is pretty much a freebie. Bingo!
I must have missed something, because I would have a hard time classifying any of the remarks on the card as "Liberal" Christian.
organizing the squares on the bingo card by numbers horizontally, and letters vertically, that one would come under 2b.
I don't know any Christians who consider themselves Liberals that wouldn't be embarrassed by such remarks, let alone make them themselves.
you mean to say you've never heard any xians, liberal or otherwise, say essentially what is written in 1c?
you've not been playing this game long.
I had a boss who would ask questions to which she knew the answers, simply to try and catch her underlings saying different things when something went wrong, so she could point her finger and punish someone. It's called being a dickhead. Nothing in the bible, especially in the OT, seems to contraindicate the fact that the ancient conception of the Abrahamic god is nothing more or less than a boss who acts like a total dickhead.
Icthyic: you're kidding, right?
take a look at literacy rates throughout history, and tell me how well something "sophisticated" would have gone over.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. People ain't necessarily dumb; religion is part of the control technique to make 'em so. Why is Navajo religion more interesting and sophisticated than the religions of the empires? 'Cause small-scale societies demand individual sophistication -- empires demand communal sophistication, and individual stupidity.
J. Diamond commented that, in his experience, folks in Niugini, as individuals, were quicker than his American compatriots. It's obvious that we have a more sophisticated and powerful society -- but if his observation isn't simply self-delusion, then it's pretty interesting that smarter individuals produce a more primitive society, while dumber individuals produce a more sophisticated society.
It's analogous to the effect seen in personal health at the transition to agriculture. Archeologists can pin-point to a very high degree of accuracy that transition, because immediately after it you see two things: a population explosion, and a severe degradation in individual health. Shorter stature, signs of malnutrition, shorter lifespans. You can find this both at the dawn in Anatolia, and in secondary cases like the colonization of N. America.
People ain't dumb. Religion makes 'em so. Stupid ideas can be selected for (I'm not talking genetically) under certain conditions.
Jason: Its a tautology, and therefore contains no meaningful information.
Tautologies do carry "meaningful information" - but it's grammatical information, not factual information. Pedantic, I know, but pedantry is the root of wisdom, right?
I think you're confusing cause and effect. People ain't necessarily dumb;
not what i said or implied.
ignorant, yes, which has nothing to do with intelligence.
regardless of what the causal reasons are, history suggests simpler ideas tend to propagate faster.
'Cause small-scale societies
then you already know the answer to your question.
look at where xianity evolved.
frog: why invent jeebus?
Icthyic: inscrutable control device.
Very good point -- not the control device (which is obvious), but the inscrutable. If it was scrutable (??), it wouldn't work very well. Inscrutability is the key -- you can't question it if it doesn't make any sense at all.
Or, in the words of South Park, "He's using the Chewbacca defense!"
"He's using the Chewbacca defense!"
LOL
just so!
Icthyic: regardless of what the causal reasons are, history suggests simpler ideas tend to propagate faster.
Exactly. The natural evolution of societies when the barriers between them are broken, where evangelism is possible, is for the spread of weed ideas (like cutting down a forest). Just look at the difference between the kind of languages that occur in small scale societies and those that arise in large scale ones.
In the smaller ones, you tend to get these nasty convoluted grammars like Navajo which has over a million conjugations, while in the large scale ones you get grammars like Chinese which is completely analytic. Look at the difference between classical Latin and vulgar Latin. The former ones are difficult to gain mastery of as a second language, while the latter seem to be built to be spoken as a second language.
So what would one expect from globalization and the loss of linguistic and political barriers? And that's a rhetorical question --- like a number of my previous ones.
Ask any novelist if there are "wrong" ways to write a novel.
Speaking as a novelist, the wrong way to write a novel is the way that doesn't work. (Duh.) Being able to think around corners is kind of fun. :)
In other words, science "isolates" itself to studying everything that actually exists, and religion is concerned with things that don't exist.
In Mike's defense, religion is an excellent tool when you want to control large groups of people. Very handy for keeping them docile and compliant. Also, its great for transferring vast amounts of wealth into the hands of the greedy few. Not that it's unique in those two respects, but as a brand name, its got the largest market share.
Unfortunately, his definition of God could use some work. There's a couple of billion people who don't worship anything closely resembling his "generally" accepted definition of god.
jumping in late:
>>'Cause small-scale societies...<<
>then you already know the answer to your question.
look at where xianity evolved.<
Uh, the Byzantine Empire was not a "small scale society".
Xtianity was just a weird Jewish splinter cult until it got adopted and refined as a STATE religion.
I'm all flattered and grinning! I helped compose that with the submitter. :)
Unsurprisingly, when she posted it on her blog, there was one person popping up with "But some of them are truuuuuuue!"
Tony #82 wrote:
A few of the quotes are a bit on the conservative side, but I've heard many of them from the "liberals."
I had some fun coming up with new ones:
"ALL beliefs are based on faith."
"Science has nothing to say about God one way or the other. Until the Templeton Foundation funds a test which successfully disproves materialism."
"It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something supernatural so I don't feel uncomfortable."
"Nobody should ever tell anyone their understanding of God is wrong: that's what the Fundamentalists do, because their understanding of God is wrong."
"My spiritual beliefs are high metaphors; I'm only ACTING as if they're not."
"Atheists all make sweeping generalizations."
"I can respect any atheist who tells me they respect faith - especially if they assure me they regret they don't have it."
"Smart people believing in God on insufficient evidence is a miracle which proves God."
"You can't see love under a microscope!"
"Faith is a sign of sophistication, humility, and the ability to love. Atheists don't like it because they're emotionally impoverished and judgmental."
"My understanding of God is too vague to be wrong."
"Science answers how questions: religion answers the 'why.'"
"It doesn't matter if the religion is true, as long as it works for you."
"The problem with atheists is that they're so literal. They only believe in what they can see, so they can't believe in thoughts or emotions."
"All paths lead to God -- so atheism is just another path to God."
I'd argue that entering a religious group's private space and stealing objects they consider sacred in order to publicly handle those objects in a manner calculated to cause maximum offense and insult is VERY MUCH like painting a swastika on a synagogue.
Every other example on that bingo board features an idea or aspect of rhetoric... actually interfering with people's religious services is something else.
"One of these things is not like the others..."
Ian @ #41: I'm surprised that it isn't on there, I knew it was on our list.
JJR: Uh, the Byzantine Empire was not a "small scale society".
Uhm, we know that. The argument is that large-scale societies, like Rome and it's many derivatives tended to produce the most moronic variations of beliefs possible -- see Christianity and Islam. Large scale societies tend to produce ideas with viral qualities -- simple and infectious, destructive to the hosts. In short, evangelism.
BrainFromArous@99,
Then you're an idiot. Disrespecting a communion wafer has not, within living memory, been the precursor to genocide. Painting swastikas on synagogues has.
Xtianity was just a weird Jewish splinter cult until it got adopted and refined as a STATE religion.
No, it had been adopted widely among gentiles throughout the Roman Empire by the mid- to late 2nd Century. It wasn't until it was a state religion that it found much traction with elites, though.
Its the equivalent of saying 'All apples are apples, and if its not an apple then it isn't an apple.'
I see your point, but I don't think you are seeing mine. The "all swans are white ..." does indeed convey some meaning since it stating that swans are white and can only be white. It is defining one of the characteristics of "swan". Your "apple is an apple" doesn't do that. That clearly conveys no meaning, however "all apples are red and if it isn't red it isn't an apple" does convey the meaning that apples are and can only be red.
I can see the point that "all swans are white" does imply that there are no swans of any other color, so it is redundant to include "if it aint white it aint a swan" but I don't think that makes it a tautology.
And no one stole anything. The wafer was freely given.
The thing with 'supernatural' phenomena, is that, would they actually happen, most people (in this day and age) wouldn't call them supernatural.
Take ghost sightings. Hardly anyone thinks those are really the spirits of the restless dead. (I recall hearing that it had something to do with strong magnetic fields having an effect on the human brain some time ago)
To illustrate this further, let's take lightning. People used to believe that it was Thor smashing some giants or Zeus battling the Titans, or whatever. Now we know better.
Even so, let's say a soul exists, and it's made out of...some kind of as-of-yet undiscovered particle. It's not supernatural. Perhaps it will turn out that these soul-particles stick together, and implant themselves in an unborn child (im going with reïncarnation here) and somehow put an imprint of the deceased's personality on the brain of that child. Or something. (Unlikely, but hey, weirder things happen in the world of quantum physics).
Should something like that happen, would we call it supernatural? I wouldn't. (I can't make up a semi-scientific explanation as to how heaven would work, by the way. The concept just sounds too ridiculous to me I guess. Someone want to give it a try?)
SteveM: I can see the point that "all swans are white" does imply that there are no swans of any other color, so it is redundant to include "if it aint white it aint a swan" but I don't think that makes it a tautology.
You seem to be caught in the trap of thinking that tautologies are meaningless and useless. All definitions are tautologies - that's what makes them useful.
You're right on the money that "All swans are white" is meaningful as a definition. That makes it a tautology, which is good: for example, logic is just one large game of tautologies. But some formulations of the tautologies are more useful than others, which is why we bother to do it. 2 + 2 = 4 is tautological once you define all the operators and symbols -- but it sure is useful to know, as opposed to just knowing that 0 + 1 := 0s, 2 := 0ss, 4 := 0ssss, and the extension rule on the successor function.
I guess people take to heart too much the argument of whether survival of the fitness is tautological or not. Even if it is, it doesn't detract from it's usefulness one whit. If that's the case, then the hypothesis isn't survival of the fittest, the hypothesis is that that definition is a productive definition within the theoretical framework of evolution. Just like F=ma isn't a hypothesis, but a definition (tautological), but the usefulness of Newtonian mechanics is quite demonstratable.
but I suppose if I were to use my own definitions I would fit the category of 'liberal christian'.
If I can use my own definitions, then I'm a gay Republican.
That's part of the problem, I think - people who have at best a nebulous idea that there's "something out there" call themselves Christians, get counted as such, and then are pulled along in polling numbers to support extremist fundamentalist policies because "the majority of the population agrees". Christian has a very specific definition. It means you worship that guy they call Christ and follow all that stuff in that book about him, hence the name of the sect. If that's not you, then you're not a liberal Christian, you'd be more accurately described as "spiritual".
In addition, many of the liberal "Christians" will actively defend extremist Christians from criticism, even though they don't share the extremist beliefs being criticized.
Years ago, I was hitchhiking across Pennsylvania and got dropped off at a forlorn place up in the mountains. The scenery was absolutely majestic: Mountains and valleys sprawling out in front of me; the sky full of clouds with rays of sunlight shooting out of them. Looked like an ecclesiastical painting.
Well, I said to god, "God, I want my next ride to be a woman." And as an afterthought, "And I want her to have some pot."
Within 5 minutes, a good-looking young lady pulled over to offer me a ride. A couple of minutes later she offered me some pot. She had a big, white German Shepard with her, riding in the back seat. (Probably why she was not intimidated about picking up a stranger.)
True story. Now, did I believe God interceded on my behalf? Naw 'cause I understand serendipity, and my cheap nihilism prevented me.
(Notice how that same nihilism allows me to butt in off-thread?)
Uh, the Byzantine Empire was not a "small scale society".
you must have missed that that was the point.
the comparison was to isolated north-american tribal societies.
xianity, to appeal to a larger and very diverse "audience" necessarily was constructed using "lowest common denominator" ideologies.
...and I now see frog already responded to that.
hitchhiking across Pennsylvania
ahh, so that's where the good hitchhiking is.
True story. Now, did I believe God interceded on my behalf?
of course not! It was the dog that told her to pick you up.
...
Did I mention I just finished watching "A Boy and His Dog"?
Wow, I've heard so many of these comments.
That's it, next time someone tries to debate about what they call "the new atheists", I'm pulling out the bingo card.
@42: If I tell you that I saw a pair of swans on the lake the other day, your default assumption should NOT be that they are white.
Also, BTW, not the same species. Same genus, cygnus.
for those wondering...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
@ Ichthyic,
Great movie. I bought a copy of it a few months ago. Don Johnson, hee-hee!
And that white dog was talking to me by the time they dropped me off. 'Course that stuff happened frequently back then . . . (lucky for me there was no "milking" machine in sight - phew.)
Well no, because what your saying is "All white swans are white." Doesn't give us any real information, because, like all tautologies, it is true in every possible world. If, by not being white, something is not a swan, then there exists no conditions under which a non-white swan can be located. The statement is empty.
I should also add, that the above needs to be kept in relation to the problem of induction; in the same way that one can 'extract' information out of the bible/qua'ran/eddas/fairy tales/etc
Hi Ichthyic (#85) - As a kid taken to a "fundie" church growing up, I think I can be counted as having played this game for a while. :-) I haven't been to a spiritual gathering in a while, mostly because I'm a work-aholic and enjoy my free weekends, but partly because I'm more a theistic rationalist these days. I'd rather engage in a passionate, respectful debate, that sit squirming in a pew, listening to someone else's spiritual views. But if I had to go to one, I'd be more intrigued by someone who suggested "My congregation is different".. because I'd want to know, skeptic that I am, how and why? Maybe I'd even find it to my liking. (You'll have to clarify your other point. 2b was easy enough to find, but I'm not sure if your other concern deals with Fundies being real Christians or Richard being uncivil. I'm just finished God Delusion, and personally, found it delightful and inspiring, even from a lapsed liberal Christian perspective.)
Sastra (#98) - Personally, most if not all of your suggestions would still seem quite illiberal to me. They all seem to suggest that liberal Christian inherently can't accept any validity to atheist views. If I might, I would suggest liberal Christians (such as universalists) would be more likely to quote the Golden Rule or similar inclusive views.
Ndt (#109) - I'd have to disagree with you on this one. I can't imagine those who are truly liberal would defend extremist views. They might invoke Voltaire's statement in defending extremist Christians' right to express their views, but I wouldn't take this as defending them from criticism. A fine line perhaps, and one easily miscontrued from either side.
Nick wrote:
"Then you're an idiot. Disrespecting a communion wafer has not, within living memory, been the precursor to genocide. Painting swastikas on synagogues has."
Agreed, but historical significance is not the issue.
I wrote:
"I'd argue that entering a religious group's private space and stealing objects they consider sacred in order to publicly handle those objects in a manner calculated to cause maximum offense and insult is VERY MUCH like painting a swastika on a synagogue."
In the matter of causing MAXIMUM OFFENSE AND INSULT, Nazi-themed vandalism would provoke much the same response from Jews as stealing and publicly mishandling their sacred objects would provoke from devoutly religious people.
One need not actually BE religious (and I am not) to understand the aptness of the analogy.
Sure it's just a cracker. And it's just paint, right?
I think we both know otherwise. In both cases, the goal is less to communicate a point of view than to cause severe emotional distress and pain. To give the target group a metaphorical kick in the teeth.
Do not misunderstand me; I'm an atheist and harsh critic of religion who applauds PZ's forthright advocacy of secularism and science. But HOW we advance these causes is important, for us and society as a whole.
Wow. This is the first time in a year that I've felt unwelcome at PZ'z place.
Too bad, really, since science needs all the allies that it can get these days.
Keep reading comments on this blog and I'll guarantee you'll see it.
(You'll have to clarify your other point. 2b was easy enough to find, but I'm not sure if your other concern deals with Fundies being real Christians or Richard being uncivil. I'm just finished God Delusion, and personally, found it delightful and inspiring, even from a lapsed liberal Christian perspective.)
you said you don't know any "liberal xians" that would say any of the things on the bingo sheet, and yet we hear complaints about Dawkins ALL THE TIME from so called "liberal xians".
this is why I said you must not have been paying attention for very long.
the items on that bingo sheet were not pulled out of someone's ass, trust me.
stick around here for a week, and doubtless you will actually see a self-proclaimed liberal xian spout at least a few of them yourself. Or, you can review some of the larger threads (like the several regarding "crackergate") and see them repeated endlessly there.
again, note that these are people claiming themselves NOT to be fundies.
Why?
(lucky for me there was no "milking" machine in sight - phew.)
:p
EXACTLY. That's exactly what's so ridiculous about being offended by "mishandling" a sacred object (which was not done publicly in this case, and did not involve stealing). The Nazis killed 6 million Jews. No one who desecrated a communion wafer also murdered. That's why being as offended at the desecration as by a swastika is completely ridiculous.
No one who desecrated a communion wafer also murdered.
hold on, now...
how much do we REALLY know about PZ's private life in his off hours?
Oh sure, the people who've met him SAY he's a really nice guy, but that could all be just a front, I tells ya!
Wow. This is the first time in a year that I've felt unwelcome at PZ's place.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT asks:
Why?
Did you read in the comments the vitriol spewed by atheists towards liberal Christians? Way to fullfill those atheist stereotypes.
Frog #78
"So of what use is religion? If the Boy who cried Wolf gives us moral guidance, why invent jeebus? If you're going to develop a fictional structure for emotional guidance, why not use something sophisticated and interesting rather than something stupid and primitive?"
The thing is fictional narratives can provide a powerful language for expressing morals. They communicate moral lessons not by dictate but by illustrating them in ways that makes it easy to visualise and hence understand them. The Boy Who Cried Wolf for example, describes a moral that wouldn't be picked up quite nearly as easily if the moral was simply put forward in simple straight forward terminology. And I think that is where religious moral codes are superior to secular moral codes; the former has a method of delivery that can reach deeper into the individual, whereas the method employed by the latter is less personal and more dictatorial. In short: leading by example.
"Of what use is religion itself, except as a primitive attempt at literature and psycho-analysis?"
I think the purpose of religion is complex and difficult to understand. On the one hand I think it sort of acts like a painkiller, neutralizing the suffering that is naturally inflicted on us by the real world. Much like how Karl Marx described it as an opium of the people. In another way, I believe it provides fictional narratives that illustrate morals, much like Aesop's Fables, (and as I described above). And I actually think that Aesop's Fables is superior in that respect, because it doesn't anywhere try and assert the fables as factually accurate, nor does it try and tie all the separate stories up into a super-narrative. Also, certainly there is no ignoring the fact that religion does often have a certain communal effect, albeit usually under false pretenses.
I think the main fault with religion is its attempt to connect the god/afterlife component with the moral narrations. As for the claim of totalitarianism, from a certain perspective I would definitely agree with that, but I think that more often than not it becomes totalitarian when it is wielded in exercise of power.
It is my opinion that if a disconnect or wall of separation can be made between the theology and the moral narrations; the dogma, religion would be far less problematic. It is also my opinion that religion is not some simple organism that is easy to understand; it is certainly not so simple as to be dismissed as a totalitarian system.
BobC #83
"It would be more accurate to say "I think the most obvious benefit for most COWARDS in is dealing with death.""
Fear of death is not something that the majority of people can rid themselves of, as it is natural; it is a part of our survival instincts. A number of individuals, Epicurus for example, may have developed logical means by which people can shed themselves of that fear, but as Bertrand Russell was right to point out, shedding that fear is only realistically possible for a cultivated minority. You're not going to get the majority to give up that fear, it is too ingrained in the human condition, and nor are you going to get the majority to give up belief in god and the afterlife, as it does work as something of an inelegant countermeasure to that fear.
"What a pathetic fake atheist he is. ... Or perhaps Mike G isn't an atheist at all."
No, I am an atheist. I lack belief in gods/deities. But unlike you I don't use that lack of belief as a starting point or basis for the foundations of any dogma, and certainly not any anti-religious dogma. Or hatred for that matter, because hatred is not productive. I'm not going to lower myself to the level of hating those I disagree with and slandering them with blatantly false accusations. I'll civilly critique the ideas but not slander the person.
As far as I can tell, atheism is not an attack on anything, nor is it a criticism of anything. It is an absence; an absence of belief. Nothing more, nothing less.
I will also point out that you've just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy BobC. You can't say that I'm not an atheist; you are in no position whatsoever to make that decision.
Again, I really pity you BobC, the fact that you're so blinded by your hate. It makes me wonder if you had some bad experience with religion in your past.
Todd #95
"Unfortunately, his definition of God could use some work. There's a couple of billion people who don't worship anything closely resembling his "generally" accepted definition of god."
I'm not talking about the god of any specific religion; I'm referring to the very principle of a higher power. Whether one wants to call it god or anything else is irrelevant, it's the very principle that is my focus. I will admit though, that in my stance of agnosticism and theological non-cognitivism, the question is unanswerable as the principle is meaningless and a working definition is impossible to compose. And the same goes for the supernatural.
Also on the supernatural. If we have an experience or see something happening then obviously it is natural occurring, and is open to scientific inquiry. But if something occurs that is by definition supernatural, we can never perceive it or experience it in any way. That is the catch with the whole idea of the supernatural. If it exists we have no way of knowing. Admittedly, logic does tell us that these things are complete fucking nonsense; I have myself described them as nonsense.
But you know what, this same debate has been going on for thousands of years, with brighter minds than any of us getting involved, and it has not gone anywhere. It is ultimately meaningless. No one has ever made a conclusive argument for either side, and I doubt that anyone ever will. So I'm just going to say: Forget about it.
That's where the "child-like confidence in God" thing comes in to play: It's ok to be inquisitive, but you have to accept - in good faith - the answers you're given.
If you reject the answers, ur doin' it wrong.
It's a neat little system, isn't it?
Well no, because what your saying is "All white swans are white." Doesn't give us any real information, because, like all tautologies, it is true in every possible world. If, by not being white, something is not a swan, then there exists no conditions under which a non-white swan can be located. The statement is empty.
No, the statement "All swans are white" conveys the information that "whiteness" is a condition of being a swan.
You are assuming that one already knows that a swan must be white. What you are saying is that any true statement conveys no information. If "all swans are white" is "empty" then there can be no difference between it and the statement "swans are white". The latter allows for non-white swans while the former does not, so it conveys that information.
It makes me wonder if you had some bad experience with religion in your past.
you're either:
lucky
sheltered
in denial
not living in the US
all of the above?
if you think you haven't.
It's a neat little system, isn't it?
well, durable, anyway.
;)
and it has not gone anywhere.
absolutely, positively, 100% incorrect.
hence why, for example, Europe is no longer in the dark ages.
also why Dawkins isn't burned at the stake for heresy.
also why science has become the only efficacious method for exploring questions about the world around us.
things have changed greatly.
eventually, like PZ, I rather think religion will be relegated to the role of the knitting circle (merely social function).
not soon enough for my tastes, and likely not in my lifetime, but it's inevitable.
the only real question is how much damage the delusional will do in trying to hold on to their delusions.
I will admit though, that in my stance of agnosticism and theological non-cognitivism, the question is unanswerable as the principle is meaningless and a working definition is impossible to compose. And the same goes for the supernatural.
then there is no legitimate magesterium for religion, which is basically what Bob was implying.
it indeed has no unique use whatsoever.
No one has ever made a conclusive argument for either side, and I doubt that anyone ever will. So I'm just going to say: Forget about it.
obviously, based on your stated position above, you really must think conclusive arguments have been made.
I rather think you like to play to the fallacy of the golden mean, but at some level you realize it is, indeed, a fallacy.
Ichthyic #133
In the words of James Watson:
"The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in God, and so he had no hang-ups about souls."
I wasn't sheltered from religion, my parents just didn't consider it relevant, and they still don't. My mum doesn't really care about it beyond basic respect, and my dad has had a sort of soft antipathy towards it. Also, it might be due to the fact that in the country of my birth, and in which I still reside, the average person is somewhat blasé about the religious beliefs of others. New Zealand. A country where there is no state church and no legal church/state separation, but where the general public isn't fond of religion interfering in politics, or even that fond of Biblical fundamentalism for that matter.
Not only have I never had any reason to believe any religion, but I don't have any reason to hate religion or feel any antipathy towards it either. I can't see any purpose in being antagonistic towards religion. I'll criticize it, in a civil manner, but I will not denigrate it. I just don't see anything productive in the type of attitude commonly expressed here.
Ichthyic #135
"it indeed has no unique use whatsoever."
No UNIQUE use, but of the use that it does serve, it does have a monopoly. There are other ideologies, secular ones that can also fulfill the same use that religion does, but for many people, people NOT like you or I, religion provides for THEM a legitimate use. What it simply comes down to is 'different strokes for different folks'. And don't take this to mean that I'm suggesting that it serves the same purpose as science, because I'm not, but rather the use I'm implying is that which people like us fill by employing any number of secular ethical ideologies.
I have to ask. Would you have any objections to the practice of many of the eastern religions, which differ vastly in their focus and goals from their Middle-eastern peers?
"hence why, for example, Europe is no longer in the dark ages."
Rates of religiosity may be decreasing in the developed nations with the exception of the USA, but it has nothing to do with whether the existential claims of religion are valid or not. If you follow the numbers and the patterns you will see that it is because of the improving status of society in those nations. In fact, of those people in developed nations other than the US, who claim to still belong to a religion, large swathes of them tend to be only nominally religious.
Ichthyic #136
"obviously, based on your stated position above, you really must think conclusive arguments have been made."
No one is any closer today than anyone else ever has been in being able to conclusively answer the question of the existence of higher beings, in either the positive or the negative. The existential question of those things that are claimed to not be a part of nature has never been conclusively answered.
Nick: "Then you're an idiot. Disrespecting a communion wafer has not, within living memory, been the precursor to genocide. Painting swastikas on synagogues has."
BrainFromArous: Agreed, but historical significance is not the issue.
Then you're an idiot who is incapable of comprehending that meaning is not a logical system built up from simple axioms, but a network of contexts. Please read Quine before posting again -- or any thought on linguistics produced after the positivists.
MikeG: No one is any closer today than anyone else ever has been in being able to conclusively answer the question of the existence of higher beings, in either the positive or the negative. The existential question of those things that are claimed to not be a part of nature has never been conclusively answered.
Does that actually mean anything? Yes, and their is no conclusive proof in the non-existence of cthonian fairies who ride purple unicorns through furiously green craters.
In the eternal words of 80's high school girls - "Gag me with a spoon."
Icthyic wrote:
Well, I've been an almost daily reader here for about a year or so, clear from before the whole crackergate.
And you believe them?
have you ever heard of the term: denial?
you should look it up sometime.
Luke 6:43-44
in your usage, it sure sounds like the Scottsman fallacy to me.
Does that actually mean anything? Yes, and their is no conclusive proof in the non-existence of cthonian fairies who ride purple unicorns through furiously green craters.
you're right, it doesn't, but I'm beginning to see it's pointless to continue trying to explain that to MikeG.
..just one last attempt...
The existential question of those things that are claimed to not be a part of nature has never been conclusively answered.
that wasn't the point of my comment that you are responding to.
it's rather obvious which side of the issue you have cognitively decided upon, based on the actual evidence.
you just apparently keep trying to fool yourself (and others, unfortunately) into thinking that the question of actual existence is even relevant to the decisions one makes personally.
as if somehow the fact that an irrelevant, nonsensical question cannot be answered somehow shelters you from admitting the decision you have clearly made, and the only rational decision there really is.
here, let me spit your words back at you one last time:
I will admit though, that in my stance of agnosticism and theological non-cognitivism, the question is unanswerable as the principle is meaningless and a working definition is impossible to compose. And the same goes for the supernatural.
you obviously realize the essential nature of this argument, and thus you must come to realize that this:
The existential question of those things that are claimed to not be a part of nature has never been conclusively answered.
is entirely irrelevant.
so drop the philosophical pretense already.
Ichthyic, please use the space in his handle. It's disconcerting enough to see such a similar looking name spouting such nonsense, but it's downright painful to think you might be aiming your formidable cannon at me.
If he sticks around, though, I'll be forced to re-'nym.
Ichthyic, please use the space in his handle.
ack!
dreadfully sorry; won't happen again.
still, I think you're safe for the moment given that I've quoted the passages from his posts that I refer to.
I'll be forced to re-'nym.
weren't you here first?
weren't you here first?
Hey, yeah! Maybe I'll just add "aka LabBoy" just to be sure, though.
This thread has me wondering... is there such a thing as a "liberal" atheist v. a "conservative" atheist? What do those modifiers refer to when applied to a believer or non-believer?
Are "liberal" atheists more accomodating of believers than "conservative" atheists or is it the other way around?
(and I'm sure no one will suggest athesists are a monotonous bunch!)
Just this last post then I'll drop it. You can be sure of that.
Icthyic, I know the question is meaningless. My agnosticism leads me to that conclusion. No doubt I appear confusing, but that is because I keep switching back and forth between my agnostic streak and my theo-non-cog streak. That's the thing about me: I never stay rigidly fixed to one position on every topic and every question.
And in light of the fact that I am using a nearly identical moniker to someone else, someone who most likely has been commenting here longer than me, (I have been visiting here for a couple of years though), I'll add one of the nicknames I have picked up in my life.
I never stay rigidly fixed to one position on every topic and every question.
the only time that is a valuable skill, is when one shifts positions in light of new evidence.
you don't do that.
you need to seriously rethink your real position on these issues.
Rik (#106), what happens when you split the "soul particle"? Or generate one? If it's a natural phenomenon, it can be observed or experimented on. If it's always and forever undetectable, we don't have to worry about it, because we have no base for believing in it, just like the Scientologists billions of homeless alien souls that are supposed to be squatting in humans, chakras, auras, or immortal souls. No evidence = no science.
haha... I just re-read my most post. I meant to say, "homogenous bunch" - not "monotonous bunch".
Dr. Freud, please call your office."
You gotta laugh...