If you were raised to believe disease was caused by curses, would you still believe it today?

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

I suggest you also read up on the Appeal to Ignorance logical fallacy.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...from_ignorance

This link might work better (Wiki is case sensitive)

[jinty]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I'm not aware that either Cortes or Pizarro ever waged a religious war.

"Pizarro's chaplain greeted the king with the announcement that King Charles V of Spain was the only true king and that the Christian god was the only true god. Atahuallpa was handed a copy of the Christian Bible. The Inca king was not about to take instruction, believing as the Inca did that their gods had put them on the world to teach others and that their great god of the sky, Virechocha, controlled all things. Atahuallpa looked at the Bible and threw it to the ground. A prearranged signal by the Spanish was given and Spaniards who had been hiding from the view of the Incas fired their harquebusiers (predecessor of the musket) and two light cannon into the Inca crowd, the weapons giving the Spanish the advantage of range and shock. Then Pizarro's cavalry charged."

From http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h17-am3.htm

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Your understanding of the terms "drop in the bucket" and "tiny" is evidently quite different than mine. You yourself have already linked to a study which says that half of Americans change religious identification from that they were raised with. Is half the population a tiny percentage?

You need to re-read my post. The vast majority of those "conversions" were Christians moving from one denomination to another. That hardly qualifies as a conversion for the purpose of this debate. The fairly obvious statment that most people, by a huge margin, practice the same religion they were raised to. Are you actually going to continue to suggest that's not true? Is it also a stretch to say that the vast majority of people speak primarily the same language they were raised to speak?

Says you. I've already linked to one person who disputes the conclusion that bananas are yellow. There could be plenty of others. What makes your statement more reliable than any of theirs?

Says me? Says science. Light with a wavelength of 570–590 nm is yellow (do you need a citation for that?), which is how the human eye perceives the color of a ripe banana. It's even defined that way in the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/banana?s=t

I even put your silly argument up for the group:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=656636

Drop the banana argument. It's a loser.

While many atheists have told me that something like this is true "by definition", none ever tell me which dictionary contains the definition. I've looked in Webster's and the OED and their definitions of religion don't match yours.

Please don't suggest that the primary tenet of religion is not faith. The "faithful", "the mystery of faith"... ring a bell? Do you really need a definition of faith?

"Belief that is not based on proof." Here's your cite if you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Religion absolutely, undeniably requires a "belief not based on proof."

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you managed to successfully prove your claims that religion would be spread through parenting. (This would contradict your claim that they spread at the tip of a sword, by the way.) Parents are largely responsible for toilet-training their kids, yet I've never seen anyone cite this as proof that people who use toilets are denying logic, motivated by fear, insane, determined by evolutionary psychology, manipulated due to their desperate poverty, &c...

Seriously, man? Learning to use a toilet has a practical and logical benefit virtually ubiquitous to all people regardless of their religious status. People not raised with religion or or toilet will figure out not to defecate in the immediate presence of others long before they develop a creation myth complete with a complicated set of rituals. (It's interesting, though, you chose a metaphor that equates religion with flushing crap down the toilet.)

Throughout history (I've already given plenty of examples and you know I'm right), religion has first been introduced through violence and subjugation. From there it has spread from parent to child, aided by threats of persecution from those in charge.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

It seems kind of arbitrary to decide that "the context of this debate" defines "religion" as "major religion" rather than "particular denomination". I'm not sure I see why a change from, say, Christianity to Hinduism should count as a "conversion" while a change from, say, strict Seventh-Day Adventist to Quaker should not.

It's not arbitrary at all. Its basic common sense. All the various denominations of Christianity follow the teachings of the EXACT SAME BOOK, with the exception of Mormons. They're ALL Christians. To suggest that switching from Methodist to Baptist (most Methodists and Baptists probably don't even know the difference) is similar to switching from Islam to Buddhism is ridiculous, and I think you know that. The difference between Shiites and Sunni Muslims doesn't even have anything to do with the actual faith. It's a difference of opinion in the leadership succession plan during the foundation of the faith.

AFAICT, if you look at the total accumulation of adherents in almost any religion, the vast majority of adherents during its history were acquired by being born into the faith

Exactly.

or by voluntary conversion

Clearly demonstrated to be relatively a very small number

not by forced conversion. Specific instances of religious oppression and violence, no matter how horrific and loathsome, don't have that much impact on the total number of adherents acquired over the whole course of a religion's history.

Throughout history, religions have been first introduced to regions through conquest and persecution. You personally may have not been forced into a religion, but somewhere up the line your ancestor almost assuredly was.

Would South America be overwhelmingly Catholic if they'd been conquered by Genghis Khan?

If you want to deny the critical role military conquest has played in the spread of the major world religions, so be it. You pretty much remove yourself from rational discussion by sticking with that argument.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Throughout history, religions have been first introduced to regions through conquest and persecution. You personally may have not been forced into a religion, but somewhere up the line your ancestor almost assuredly was.

Throughout history, human characteristics and practices ranging from languages to systems of government to eating particular foods have been first introduced to regions through conquest and persecution. You personally may have not been forced into vowing allegiance to a foreign ruler, but somewhere up the line your ancestor almost assuredly was.

Once again, Victor Charlie, the evils you're ascribing solely to religion are actually endemic in many other aspects of human society as well: you're just too obsessed with your religion-is-bad evangelism to notice it.

Religion is not automatically bad just because its spread inevitably included episodes of war and conquest, any more than government is automatically bad just because its spread inevitably included episodes of war and conquest. Your argument that generations of religious adherents are somehow intrinsically "tainted" because their ancestors first encountered that religion in the presence of a conquering army is simply silly.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Throughout history, human characteristics and practices ranging from languages to systems of government to eating particular foods have been first introduced to regions through conquest and persecution. You personally may have not been forced into vowing allegiance to a foreign ruler, but somewhere up the line your ancestor almost assuredly was.

Okay, so you're suggesting that language and food preferences are, like religion, largely attributable to ancestry and were originally established through conquest. Agreed. Most English-speakers speak English primarily because their parents did. Most Italians eat Italian food primarily because their parents did. And, most Catholics are Catholics because their parents are. That's exactly the supposition I made in the OP.

Once again, Victor Charlie, the evils you're ascribing solely to religion are actually endemic in many other aspects of human society as well: you're just too obsessed with your religion-is-bad evangelism to notice it.

I've nowhere said that religion is evil. I think evil people have exploited it to evil ends, but there are many ways different religions have advanced the cause of humanity. But it does, by it's very nature, require the suspension of logic and critical thinking. That becomes a real problem when people invoke it to disavow evolution or to treat concepts like intelligent design as if they have any basis in rational thought.

Your argument that generations of religious adherents are somehow intrinsically "tainted" because their ancestors first encountered that religion in the presence of a conquering army is simply silly.

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that otherwise rational people will, in MASSIVE numbers, deny logical reasoning in favor of a creation story dreamed up by superstitious men 3,000 years ago because they had not the faintest concept of disease pathogens, geology, meteorology or the basic workings of the universe. This belief is impressed upon people at the earliest age who are told they risk damnation if they don't buy in.

So, my original question stands: If you were taught throughout your entire uprbinging that the center of the earth is creamy nougat, would you believe it today? If not, why not?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

You've got two different types of question there. There will never be irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist, because God is by definition a supernatural being and thus not subject to rational-materialism rules of evidence. No matter how unnecessary or superfluous the concept of God may be in devising a rational-materialist scientific explanation of reality, no such explanation will ever be able to disprove the hypothesis of God's existence.


But that's not the same thing as saying that science can't explain the beginnings of space and time and matter etc. without hypothesizing God's existence. At the moment, cosmological theories are nowhere near complete enough to answer all the unresolved questions about the origins of the universe. But there's no reason to assume that science won't or can't answer those questions at some point in the future.

In any case, scientific theories are not allowed to use the concept of "intervention of a divine being" in explaining the natural world, because it doesn't actually explain anything. Science is committed to playing by the rules of rational materialism in which only non-supernatural explanations of phenomena are permitted.

Yeah fine, whatever. But that not the question the OP is asking. the OP is comparing belief in God to believing that illness is caused by curses when we KNOW that its not.

So until you do resolve those questions about the origins of the universe to a degree that approaches our understanding of germs, believing in God in the absence of proof to the contrary is NOT like believing that curses cause illness after the discovery of germs.

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Point me to a damn good reason why the words "We don't know yet, but we're still looking" should be replaced by the word "God".

Why not, why should we replace the word God with the words "we don't know yet (but we are absolutely sure its not God) and that one day science will explain it all"? Why is your faith that quantum physics will one day explain it all better than a Christian's faith that divine intervention started it all?

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ghetti_Monster


I suggest you also read up on the Appeal to Ignorance logical fallacy.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...from_ignorance

This is not an appeal to ignorance. The OP posits an example where conclusive proof (germs) exists that curses do not cause something (illness) and then asks why people still believe in God when similar proof does not exist wrt God's existence.

I'm not saying that the fact that you cannot disprove his existence means he must exist. I don't have a problem with science, I have a problem with people mis-using science to claim certitude where none exists.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

This is not an appeal to ignorance. The OP posits an example where conclusive proof (germs) exists that curses do not cause something (illness) and then asks why people still believe in God when similar proof does not exist wrt God's existence.

I'm not saying that the fact that you cannot disprove his existence means he must exist. I don't have a problem with science, I have a problem with people mis-using science to claim certitude where none exists.

Any suggestion at all that a claim has merit because it hasn't yet been disproven IS an appeal to ignorance. Scientists don't actively make the claim that God doesn't exist just like they don't work to prove that flying toasters don't live on Jupiter. If I were to make the claim that I am God, that I created the world last week and that all memory you have from before then was implanted by me, would you say "well, it hasn't been disproven so it just might explain everything"?

Before you answer, remember that I am a vengeful god.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

I've nowhere said that religion is evil. I think evil people have exploited it to evil ends, but there are many ways different religions have advanced the cause of humanity. But it does, by it's very nature, require the suspension of logic and critical thinking.

No, it does not. I'm not denying that many individual religions at many points in human history have required the suspension of logic and critical thinking (as indeed have many other ideologies, including vague and ill-defined aspirations like "advancing the cause of humanity"). But religion doesn't by its nature require that people abstain from thinking logically and critically.

Religion by its nature addresses questions that logic and critical thinking don't provide objective answers to, such as "What is the meaning of life?" and "Is there a shared 'cause' among the human species, and if so, what is the best way of advancing it?" and "Are there aspects of reality that can't be known through logic and critical thinking?"

Many religions also address questions that logic and critical thinking do provide objective answers to, such as "How and when was the earth formed?" and "Why do human beings look more like chimps than like rabbits?" And I completely agree with you that when religious dogma requires that the logic-and-critical-thinking answers to such questions be ignored in favor of faith-based dogmatic answers, that's a very bad thing.

However, "religion" in the abstract does not by its nature require any such rejection of logic and critical thinking, as evidenced by the many religious people who do think logically and critically about scientific issues.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So until you do resolve those questions about the origins of the universe to a degree that approaches our understanding of germs, believing in God in the absence of proof to the contrary is NOT like believing that curses cause illness after the discovery of germs.

Whatever floats your boat. Personally, if I believed that the existence of a supernatural deity was crucial not just to answering certain cosmological questions but also to understanding the very nature of reality and the meaningfulness of existence, I wouldn't want to pin that belief on the temporary incompleteness of current scientific theories. Even as an atheist, I think that the idea of God ought to be something more than a momentary epistemological stopgap.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Scientists don't actively make the claim that God doesn't exist just like they don't work to prove that flying toasters don't live on Jupiter.

Two different things (unless you're postulating that these flying toasters are supernatural beings).

The hypothesis of flying toasters on Jupiter is a rational-materialist, i.e., scientific, hypothesis: it may be false but it is not un-disprovable. Scientists don't bother trying to disprove it simply because it's so implausible as to be a waste of time.

However, the hypothesis of the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis at all, whether it's false or true, because a supernatural being is not amenable to the laws of the natural world. There is no way scientists ever could disprove the existence of a supernatural being even if they all spent every waking moment attempting to.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Why not, why should we replace the word God with the words "we don't know yet (but we are absolutely sure its not God) and that one day science will explain it all"? Why is your faith that quantum physics will one day explain it all better than a Christian's faith that divine intervention started it all?

(bolding mine)I do not appreciate you adding to my words to make it look as if I have some sort of blind faith in science. I did not say, or even imply, the emboldened part.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Two different things (unless you're postulating that these flying toasters are supernatural beings).

The hypothesis of flying toasters on Jupiter is a rational-materialist, i.e., scientific, hypothesis: it may be false but it is not un-disprovable. Scientists don't bother trying to disprove it simply because it's so implausible as to be a waste of time.

However, the hypothesis of the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis at all, whether it's false or true, because a supernatural being is not amenable to the laws of the natural world. There is no way scientists ever could disprove the existence of a supernatural being even if they all spent every waking moment attempting to.

You're being a bit pedantic. I used that as an example merely to demonstrate true scientists don't waste a single calorie chasing down flights of fancy that are no more supportable than any one of a million absurd scenarios that anyone with a functioning imagination could conjure. For all practical purposes, we're more likely to prove or disprove the existence of God than to scour every inch of Jupiter's surface to disprove flying toasters (that's merely a point of discussion, please don't try to calculate the probability of scouring Jupiter's surface for winged appliances.) Too often we hear the argument that since an intelligent, divine being hasn't been disproven, it may exist. While this may seem sapient, it elevates that position from one of wild speculation to one of legitimate theory. In that sense, it's no more reasonable than flying Jupiterian toasters. The Judeo-Christian creation story is no more supportable than saying Earth is an unpopped kernel from a massive celestial popcorn popper, or the universe was created by an enormous golden retriever made of turkey sausage who farted us into existence or that were all just batteries for our mechanical masters and that our entire consciousness is nothing more than a computer program.

[Trans Fat Og]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Let each person decide for themselves.

The problem is this: Way too many "enlightened" souls (by their own estimation) are fond of spreading their demonstrably false and demonstrably dangerous beliefs and misinformation by any means possible. Sometimes this fondness crosses over to stark determination.

(I don't mean you in this. For all I know you don't pressre anyone in 3D in any way. Your posts here seem so laid-back that you almost seem to not care if you sway a single person, so that kind of casual and gentle approach elsewhere would be the likely scenario.)

When the backers of the irrational have significant power, they frequently, if not always, impose a ideological tyranny by brute force.

I have countless examples from human history to back up my sentiments on this.

You know, facts.

What do you have, some dissenting feelings about history that work for you personally?

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Why is your faith that quantum physics will one day explain it all better than a Christian's faith that divine intervention started it all?

Because quantum physics has some basis in the physical, observable world. An entry-level physicist can demonstrate the properties of quantum physics. It may not hold all of the answers, but everything we've learned up until now demonstrates that it at least holds some of them. You're no more likely to prove divine intervention than I am to prove my claim that invisible pixies magically replace my coffee cup each morning with an exact replica.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

For all practical purposes, we're more likely to prove or disprove the existence of God than to scour every inch of Jupiter's surface to disprove flying toasters (that's merely a point of discussion, please don't try to calculate the probability of scouring Jupiter's surface for winged appliances.) Too often we hear the argument that since an intelligent, divine being hasn't been disproven, it may exist. While this may seem sapient, it elevates that position from one of wild speculation to one of legitimate theory. In that sense, it's no more reasonable than flying Jupiterian toasters.

No, I'm afraid you've missed the point. It is a priori impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of a supernatural being. Because science concerns itself only with natural phenomena.

I agree with you that the hypothesis of a supernatural divine being is not a legitimate scientific hypothesis. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it's true or plausible or likely. It's not scientific simply because it's making a claim about something outside the natural world, in which the tools of science simply don't work.

You're perfectly free to believe that there isn't anything outside the natural world, of course (as do I). But there is no logically meaningful way to use science to prove that, because science applies only to the natural world and has no way of telling whether there's anything beyond it.

Similarly, as you note, the fact that science hasn't disproven the existence of God doesn't constitute even a shred of evidence in favor of its truth.

[Trans Fat Og]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Because quantum physics has some basis in the physical, observable world...

Agreed. I recall a talk with demonstration a few years at a local (Rochester, NY) philosophy group by a Syracuse University professor. He showed us light being almost 100% blocked by two polarizing screens held at right angles to each other. After inserting a third polarizing screen between them with a diagonal aspect to each of the first two, there was plenty of light able to shine through. I don't clearly recall the explanation for the phenomenon, but he gave it as an example of a way to demonstrate something that would go against expectations from classical physics. And the objects involved are neither hard to transport nor expensive.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

No, I'm afraid you've missed the point. It is a priori impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of a supernatural being. Because science concerns itself only with natural phenomena.

No, I really haven't. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't being literal when I mentioned the probability of proving God. So WE AGREE that it's impossible to prove or disprove the supernatural... no matter how absurd.

You're perfectly free to believe that there isn't anything outside the natural world, of course (as do I). But there is no logically meaningful way to use science to prove that, because science applies only to the natural world and has no way of telling whether there's anything beyond it.

And that's exactly where the problem lies. Discussions of the divine or supernatural have NO PLACE in discussions about science, yet religious folk are forever trying to use their "theories" as a counter-balance to evolution and other legitimate scientific study.

The Judeo-Christian creation story is no more plausible than my claim that we were forged in the EZ Bake Oven of a celestial ManGoat. But if I tried to pass that off to a church assembly I'd be laughed out of the place.

But, if those same people were raised to believe in the EZ Baking ManGoat, a whole lot of them would buy my story.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Trans Fat Og

I don't clearly recall the explanation for the phenomenon

It was God.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

No, it does not. I'm not denying that many individual religions at many points in human history have required the suspension of logic and critical thinking (as indeed have many other ideologies, including vague and ill-defined aspirations like "advancing the cause of humanity"). But religion doesn't by its nature require that people abstain from thinking logically and critically.

Of course it does. At the heart of every religion is a creation myth that has no logical or scientific support. To believe any of these stories to be true absolutely requires the suspension of critical thinking. (Unless you can point me in the direction of the religion that states the universe was born 14 billions years ago from the rapid expansion of subatomic particles from singularity... or at least a static universe explanation.)

I never claimed that ALL aspects of a religion require a suspension of logic or that all religious people have no capacity for critical thought. But you're not a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Scientologist if you don't believe the universe was created by the conscious effort of a divine being. And believing that's what happened (not just that it COULD have happened) requires you to suspend logic.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Any suggestion at all that a claim has merit because it hasn't yet been disproven IS an appeal to ignorance. Scientists don't actively make the claim that God doesn't exist just like they don't work to prove that flying toasters don't live on Jupiter. If I were to make the claim that I am God, that I created the world last week and that all memory you have from before then was implanted by me, would you say "well, it hasn't been disproven so it just might explain everything"?

Before you answer, remember that I am a vengeful god.

Wait. So you're saying that "appeal to ignorance" includes any SUGGESTION AT ALL that a claim MIGHT be true because it has not been disproven? I think you might be broadening the definition of the term.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Personally, if I believed that the existence of a supernatural deity was crucial not just to answering certain cosmological questions but also to understanding the very nature of reality and the meaningfulness of existence, I wouldn't want to pin that belief on the temporary incompleteness of current scientific theories. Even as an atheist, I think that the idea of God ought to be something more than a momentary epistemological stopgap.

Where do I say I believe any of that? I'm saying that the OP is making a bad analogy by comparing belief in curses causing illness where there is proof that its not the case to believing in God Where there is no proof either way.

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

(bolding mine)I do not appreciate you adding to my words to make it look as if I have some sort of blind faith in science. I did not say, or even imply, the emboldened part.

Really?!?!? You're outraged that I put words in your mouth to make you look like you have blind faith in science? Did you even READ the post I was replying to?

Let me help you:

Point me to a damn good reason why the words "We don't know yet, but we're still looking" should be replaced by the word "God".

When did I ever say that we should replace "we don't know yet" with "God" Weren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing?

People can see words you wrote right above the words I wrote, theres no risk that people will confuse the words I wrote as a direct quote of the words you wrote.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Because quantum physics has some basis in the physical, observable world. An entry-level physicist can demonstrate the properties of quantum physics. It may not hold all of the answers, but everything we've learned up until now demonstrates that it at least holds some of them. You're no more likely to prove divine intervention than I am to prove my claim that invisible pixies magically replace my coffee cup each morning with an exact replica.

These comparisons of religion with invisible pixies and curses causing illness does very little to convince me that people have an open mind about any of this. They are just hostile to religion.

There are well regarded Christian paleontologists, biologists and physicists who maintain the existence of God. They believe that science is not inconsistent with the existence of God. Apparently you do.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

These comparisons of religion with invisible pixies and curses causing illness does very little to convince me that people have an open mind about any of this. They are just hostile to religion.

There are well regarded Christian paleontologists, biologists and physicists who maintain the existence of God. They believe that science is not inconsistent with the existence of God. Apparently you do.

Given that there is an equal amount of evidence for both your "God" and invisible pixies(none), and given the claims as to the abilities of both, which would you consider to be more likely, all things being equal?
Of course, if you have solid evidence that makes your all-powerful "God" more likely to exist than invisible pixies that merely replace coffee cups, I'm all ears.

edited to add: Personally I think both concepts are rather silly...but I would say that one is even sillier than the other.
Can you guess which one?

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Wait. So you're saying that "appeal to ignorance" includes any SUGGESTION AT ALL that a claim MIGHT be true because it has not been disproven? I think you might be broadening the definition of the term.

The appeal to ignorance comes when you suggest a SPECIFIC, un-disprovable theory as an explanation for anything. You have yet to argue "we don't know how it happened, so it could be anything." You've thus far argued "we don't know what happened, so it could be a divine, spiritual being." The specificity constitutes the appeal. By making that very specific suggestion in the context of scientific discussion, you're implicitly elevating it as a rationale more plausible than any other cockamamie story I could come up with.

Let me ask you this, and be honest: Is your divine being explanation more or less plausible than me saying the entire universe sloughed from an eczema patch on the inner thigh of the Sky Chimp's seventh leg?

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I'm saying that the OP is making a bad analogy by comparing belief in curses causing illness where there is proof that its not the case to believing in God Where there is no proof either way.

With regard to how we observe and define the natural world, believing in un-disprovable speculation devoid of any factual basis is one half-stop away from believing in the disproven. Consider the above example. You will NEVER believe the Sky Chimp myth because you know it's patently absurd and a waste of time to even consider. Well, it's every bit as logical as your divine being theory.

If the only strength of your theory has is that it can't be disproven, then that's no strength at all.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

These comparisons of religion with invisible pixies and curses causing illness does very little to convince me that people have an open mind about any of this. They are just hostile to religion.

I'm not hostile to religion. I'm hostile to the idea that it has any place at the table with legitimate scientific discussion. Believe whatever you want to believe. I don't care. Just don't suggest it as a candidate for explaining the universe unless you're also ready to discuss the Sky Chimp.

[Wesley Clark]

It depends. I'd like to think I wouldn't, but if there was no competing theory that actually works, and the dogma fit into the culture at large's dogma then maybe. I think I'd be less likely to think it than the median, but I really can't say for sure if I would or not.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Religion absolutely, undeniably requires a "belief not based on proof."

I agree with most of your points but not this. Religions are too varied, and some have existed long enough that their original intent has become mixed up with cultural traditions, such that you can't make any definitive blank statement like that.

The "blind faith" aspect of religions is not universal, and not an essentially defining aspect. Some religions require you to decide things for yourself. Some religions eventually jettison the silly mythological aspects and just concentrate on the communal aspects.

Most religions accumulate various other purposes through time. Religions can come to accommodate a lot of different institutional purposes - world view, spiritual, cultural, legal, health, mythological, governmental, moral, etc. It's hard to separate these things once they become attached to each other. Picking out any particular aspect as invalid does not automatically invalidate every other aspect of the institution.

And these things don't spring out of a void. Even if later members are asked to take things "on faith" and the teachings become dogmatized or corrupted or codified, usually the original wellspring is based on some kind of physical or philosophical experience. If one were present at the origin of any particular religion, before it became obfuscated with other concerns, the tenets would be examinable, and potentially even falsifiable.

And in some respects, ignoring all the things that end up attaching themselves to religion eventually, there is still some basic domain in which they ascribe themselves to, that of spirituality. And while it may be said that there are many dubious claims about the field, it must be acknowledged that the field itself is inherently abstract enough that allowances must be made for this aspect. Psychology is nearly as abstract, yet we make allowances for the abstract nature of it's domain. Just because something has a very high level order of complexity/chaocity and fluidity does not mean it is completely unworthy of study. It just requires finer techniques.

Just as it is a mistake for people who wholeheartedly accept every aspect of the religion of their upbringing based on the fact that it has many aspects that are effectively true, it is just as much a mistake to dismiss every aspect of a religion based on the fact that many aspects of it are demonstrably untrue.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

I agree with most of your points but not this. Religions are too varied, and some have existed long enough that their original intent has become mixed up with cultural traditions, such that you can't make any definitive blank statement like that.

The "blind faith" aspect of religions is not universal, and not an essentially defining aspect. Some religions require you to decide things for yourself. Some religions eventually jettison the silly mythological aspects and just concentrate on the communal aspects.

Most religions accumulate various other purposes through time. Religions can come to accommodate a lot of different institutional purposes - world view, spiritual, cultural, legal, health, mythological, governmental, moral, etc. It's hard to separate these things once they become attached to each other. Picking out any particular aspect as invalid does not automatically invalidate every other aspect of the institution.

And these things don't spring out of a void. Even if later members are asked to take things "on faith" and the teachings become dogmatized or corrupted or codified, usually the original wellspring is based on some kind of physical or philosophical experience. If one were present at the origin of any particular religion, before it became obfuscated with other concerns, the tenets would be examinable, and potentially even falsifiable.

And in some respects, ignoring all the things that end up attaching themselves to religion eventually, there is still some basic domain in which they ascribe themselves to, that of spirituality. And while it may be said that there are many dubious claims about the field, it must be acknowledged that the field itself is inherently abstract enough that allowances must be made for this aspect. Psychology is nearly as abstract, yet we make allowances for the abstract nature of it's domain. Just because something has a very high level order of complexity/chaocity and fluidity does not mean it is completely unworthy of study. It just requires finer techniques.

Just as it is a mistake for people who wholeheartedly accept every aspect of the religion of their upbringing based on the fact that it has many aspects that are effectively true, it is just as much a mistake to dismiss every aspect of a religion based on the fact that many aspects of it are demonstrably untrue.

I've tried not to give the impression that I think belief in the creation story of a given religion invalidates the remaining teachings of that religion. But a person can't really count themselves as a member of that religion if they don't accept as true that creation story. It's pretty much THE fundamental requirement of Christianity that you believe Jesus is the son of God. Most definitions of religion I've seen include a creation myth, but your contentions seem more than reasonable.

[jinty]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Really?!?!? You're outraged that I put words in your mouth to make you look like you have blind faith in science? Did you even READ the post I was replying to?

You did exactly what Czarcasm said you did. You put words in his mouth.

And for my money you've just done it again. He said "I do not appreciate..." and you've replied "You're outraged...?"

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Throughout history (I've already given plenty of examples and you know I'm right), religion has first been introduced through violence and subjugation. From there it has spread from parent to child, aided by threats of persecution from those in charge.

Actually, I do not "know that you're right". Rather, I know that you're wrong, and have already explained why. The only examples that you've given about religion being spread by force are in post #27, where you said this:

Are you unfamiliar with the fact that Christianity was a small, relatively insignificant sect until Constantine had a battlefield epiphany and made it the religion of the Holy Roman Empire, converting by pain of death a huge swath of the ancient western world? How about Cortez, Pizarro and conquistadors waging religious war on the native Central and South American empires? How did heathens and heretics fare under Torquemada or the religious authority in Salem, Massachusetts?

I and others fairly easily showed that all of the "facts" you refer to are actually fictions. Hence you have not yet given a single example of religion being spread by force.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

You need to re-read my post. The vast majority of those "conversions" were Christians moving from one denomination to another. That hardly qualifies as a conversion for the purpose of this debate.

I think it's you who needs to got back and read posts #30 and #31. I and others have already responded to this line of argument. Thus far you've ignored our responses.

The fairly obvious statment that most people, by a huge margin, practice the same religion they were raised to. Are you actually going to continue to suggest that's not true?

Previously you've said that the number of conversions is "tiny" and "a drop in the bucket". Yet you've already linked to a poll documenting tens of millions of conversions in the United States, and I've mentioned China, wherein more than a hundred million have converted to Christianity despite persecution from the government. If necessary, I could mention other countries where a large portion of the population has converted to Christianity despite persecution by the government, such as South Korea. Do you still stand by your statement that the total number of religious conversions is "tiny"? Yes or no?

(Obviously phrases such as "the vast majority" and "by a huge margin" are ambiguous.)

Please don't suggest that the primary tenet of religion is not faith. The "faithful", "the mystery of faith"... ring a bell?

Yes, I'm familiar with those phrases, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to prove that "the primary tenet" of every religion is faith.

Do you really need a definition of faith?

"Belief that is not based on proof." Here's your cite if you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Religion absolutely, undeniably requires a "belief not based on proof."

The link that you provided to dictionary.com provides five definitions of the word "faith". You only quoted #2, while the one that's obviously relevant to this thread is #3. Nice try, though.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I and others fairly easily showed that all of the "facts" you refer to are actually fictions. Hence you have not yet given a single example of religion being spread by force.

You're actually going to deny that Catholicism wasn't spread in the Americas through conquest, a specific example of which was listed earlier by another poster? (South and Central America represent the largest faction of Catholics in the world.) The Muslims conquest of Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran by Abu Bakr and al Katthab? Those don't count? How about Charlemegne who spread the Frankish empire beyond western and central Europe by conquering Italy and other regions? You know what he did? He ordered conversion to Christianity on pain of death.

So far we've got Central and South America, huge portions of Western, Central and Southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Should I go on?

The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Puritans... the list goes on and on.

Even when they didn't force conversion, religious combatants for centuries have used non-conformity as an excuse to slaughter. You really need examples of that?

Or is your gambit to suggest that the conversions were not the result of the military conquests and merely happened coincidentally? That those who converted did it of free will and not out of fear of persecution from their brutal conquerors? Are you going to suggest that when a bloody, overwhelming military force like Constantine conquers your lands while professing Christianity as the official religion of the empire that you wouldn't feel a less-than-spiritual motivation to convert? You don't have to have the sword pointed directly at your own neck to get the message.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Given that there is an equal amount of evidence for both your "God" and invisible pixies(none), and given the claims as to the abilities of both, which would you consider to be more likely, all things being equal?
Of course, if you have solid evidence that makes your all-powerful "God" more likely to exist than invisible pixies that merely replace coffee cups, I'm all ears.

edited to add: Personally I think both concepts are rather silly...but I would say that one is even sillier than the other.
Can you guess which one?

I can prove your invisible pixies don't exist. This inability to take a nuanced view of issues that you disagree with tells me that you would make a very good Republican.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

The appeal to ignorance comes when you suggest a SPECIFIC, un-disprovable theory as an explanation for anything. You have yet to argue "we don't know how it happened, so it could be anything." You've thus far argued "we don't know what happened, so it could be a divine, spiritual being." The specificity constitutes the appeal. By making that very specific suggestion in the context of scientific discussion, you're implicitly elevating it as a rationale more plausible than any other cockamamie story I could come up with.

I think you have infered all sorts of arguments that I have never made.

I made one point.

You can't compare belief in curses as the cause of illness (when this has actually been disproven) to belief in a God where the existence of God is not disprovable. The creation story is no less disprovable than the notion that the sun revolved around the earth. But as far as Ic an tell, science is still at the "its turtles all the way down" stage of explainiing away God with science.

Let me ask you this, and be honest: Is your divine being explanation more or less plausible than me saying the entire universe sloughed from an eczema patch on the inner thigh of the Sky Chimp's seventh leg?

I am not picking one explanation of divine intervention over another, I am taking issue with the conflation of something that is disproven (curses causing illness) to something that is not disprovable (the existrence of God).

Heck, I know folks who think the big bang theory is proof of god's existence.

If the only strength of your theory has is that it can't be disproven, then that's no strength at all.

I'ver said this about a dozen times now. I am not arguing anything other than the fact that OPs analogy is flawed because you can actually prove that curses don't cause illness while you have no evidence that some sort of creator does not exist.

I'm not hostile to religion. I'm hostile to the idea that it has any place at the table with legitimate scientific discussion. Believe whatever you want to believe. I don't care. Just don't suggest it as a candidate for explaining the universe unless you're also ready to discuss the Sky Chimp.

We aren't talking about science, we are talking about an OP that implies that God has been disproven and then questions why people still have faith in him.

Originally Posted by jinty

You did exactly what Czarcasm said you did. You put words in his mouth.

No more than he did to me.

And for my money you've just done it again. He said "I do not appreciate..." and you've replied "You're outraged...?"

Thats absurd.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I can prove your invisible pixies don't exist.

Do so.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I think it's you who needs to got back and read posts #30 and #31. I and others have already responded to this line of argument. Thus far you've ignored our responses.

No I haven't. It is you who keeps repeating the same argument. I'll simplify: You keep insisting that "converting" from Methodism to Presbyterianism counts as a conversion. That's absurd in the context of this debate. It's converting from Christianity to Christianity. Methodism is NOT, in and of itself, a religion. Presbyterianism is NOT a religion. They're denominations of the Christian religion. You're not renouncing your faith by switching from Baptism to Assembly of God. But you are if you switch from Baptism to Shi'a.

Re-stating your previous argument does not address what I've posted.

Previously you've said that the number of conversions is "tiny" and "a drop in the bucket". Do you still stand by your statement that the total number of religious conversions is "tiny"? Yes or no?

Of the more than 2 billion Christians, the overwhelming majority of which were raised in Christian households, 100 million is tiny by comparison. Plus, you can't claim 100 million Chinese as converts because a huge number of those were raised in Christian homes after their parent or grandparents converted. The more we analyze the smaller your number of converts gets.

(Obviously phrases such as "the vast majority" and "by a huge margin" are ambiguous.)

There's nothing ambiguous about "vast majority" or "huge margin" when we're talking about 90% or more.

Yes, I'm familiar with those phrases, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to prove that "the primary tenet" of every religion is faith.

Are you serious? Faith is absolutely THE defining tenet of religion, as DEFINED in the dictionary: The ritual observance of faith. Everything you practice in a religion is driven by your faith in the spiritual (creator, deity, reincarnation, etc.)

The link that you provided to dictionary.com provides five definitions of the word "faith". You only quoted #2, while the one that's obviously relevant to this thread is #3. Nice try, though.

Actually, no it's not. This thread (I know because I originated it) is about continuing to believe in a theory even after it's been shown to be completely unsubstantiated or factually incorrect... that you will accept the theory as a matter of faith. I didn't mention God anywhere in the OP. It's immaterial any way because belief in God is ALSO a belief that is not based in truth.

You keep dancing around the basic facts presented in my argument, which are:

Religion has no basis in logic or critical thinking - Fact

Any religious claim is no more legitimate than the most preposterous flight of fancy I or anyone else can dream up - Undeniable

The VAST majority of religious adherents practice the same primary religion in which they were raised (i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) - The numbers are quite clear and you're grasping to suggest otherwise

Fear has been a major motivating factor in the spread of religion:
Fear of damnation - It's right there in the Bible
Fear of death - A seemingly endless list of religion spread through military conquest, persecution and murder of the unfaithful
Fear of economic persecution (I didn't even get to the examples of tax and trading benefits extended to religeously like-minded merchants by the likes of Constantine and others.)

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Of course it does. At the heart of every religion is a creation myth that has no logical or scientific support.

No such myth is required by every interpretation of every religion. There are plenty of religious believers who believe that, say, a deity is ultimately responsible in some kind of transcendent supernatural way for the existence of the universe, but who don't think that that divine influence in ANY way contradicts or substitutes for any scientific material explanation of the origins of the universe that is now known or may be found in future.

That is not "suspending logic and critical thinking", it's merely allowing the existence of non-rational faith in PARALLEL with logic and critical thinking.

I agree with you that there are plenty of religious believers who do use supernatural explanations to contradict or substitute for rational ones sometimes, e.g., by saying "Since we don't have a firm scientific explanation of the Big Bang then it must have been direct divine intervention." But not all religious believers think this way, and religion doesn't inherently and essentially require thinking this way.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

But you're not a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Scientologist if you don't believe the universe was created by the conscious effort of a divine being. And believing that's what happened (not just that it COULD have happened) requires you to suspend logic.

Nope. This misapprehension seems to be at the core of your misunderstanding of the nature of religious belief. You are practicing a kind of "scientism" that assumes that logical rational materialism is a priori the only correct way to think about reality.

This leads you to conclude that ANY kind of non-rational, non-logical, non-materialist thought is somehow taking place at the expense of logic and critical thinking. But if you accept the (non-disprovable) possibility that there might be aspects of reality that are inherently inaccessible to logic and critical thinking, then having some non-rational ideas about those aspects of reality does not involve suspending logic.

As a concrete example, there are plenty of believers who will say "I accept all the currently established scientific theories about the nature of physical reality and I'm sure we'll establish additional ones that explain things we currently don't understand, possibly even up to a complete and well-supported theory of everything about the physical universe from its origin on up. However, I also happen to believe that there's a divine being transcendently involved with reality in ways that scientific reasoning cannot determine or detect."

Those believers are NOT suspending logic or critical thinking in any aspect of reality to which they apply. They are merely denying the a priori assumption that logic and critical thinking are the ONLY valid epistemological approach to reality.

To that extent, they're using a less intellectually bigoted and close-minded worldview than you are.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

No such myth is required by every interpretation of every religion. There are plenty of religious believers who believe that, say, a deity is ultimately responsible in some kind of transcendent supernatural way for the existence of the universe, but who don't think that that divine influence in ANY way contradicts or substitutes for any scientific material explanation of the origins of the universe that is now known or may be found in future. That is not "suspending logic and critical thinking", it's merely allowing the existence of non-rational faith in PARALLEL with logic and critical thinking.

Believing that "a deity is ultimately responsible in some kind of transcendent supernatural way for the existence of the universe" ABSOLUTELY requires a suspension of logic regardless of what else you believe. One doesn't counteract the other. I may know that the half-life of uranium is more than 4 billion years but that doesn't mean my belief that Gargamel lives undetectable at the center of the moon is any less irrational.

I agree with you that there are plenty of religious believers who do use supernatural explanations to contradict or substitute for rational ones sometimes, e.g., by saying "Since we don't have a firm scientific explanation of the Big Bang then it must have been direct divine intervention." But not all religious believers think this way, and religion doesn't inherently and essentially require thinking this way.

Religion by any reasonable definition requires belief in a supernatural phenomenon that is specific to that religion. That by itself is a suspension of logic. I certainly appreciate those who can separate their faith in a spiritual world from their knowledge of the proven physical world. If everybody practiced that discipline we'd have no problems. Unfortunately, there are too many people who don't and, all too often, that behavior is accompanied by forced ignorance and even bloodshed.

This leads you to conclude that ANY kind of non-rational, non-logical, non-materialist thought is somehow taking place at the expense of logic and critical thinking. But if you accept the (non-disprovable) possibility that there might be aspects of reality that are inherently inaccessible to logic and critical thinking, then having some non-rational ideas about those aspects of reality does not involve suspending logic.

As a concrete example, there are plenty of believers who will say "I accept all the currently established scientific theories about the nature of physical reality and I'm sure we'll establish additional ones that explain things we currently don't understand, possibly even up to a complete and well-supported theory of everything about the physical universe from its origin on up. However, I also happen to believe that there's a divine being transcendently involved with reality in ways that scientific reasoning cannot determine or detect."

Those believers are NOT suspending logic or critical thinking in any aspect of reality to which they apply. They are merely denying the a priori assumption that logic and critical thinking are the ONLY valid epistemological approach to reality.

To that extent, they're using a less intellectually bigoted and close-minded worldview than you are.

This is a whole lot of dancing around a fairly simple concept. To be a Christian, Jew or Muslim you MUST believe in God. Period. That in and of itself is illogical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or that those who believe are stupid, but it's illogical and requires a suspension in critical thinking. Critical thinking would tell you there's no more reason to believe in a divine being than to believe we've floated forever in the ice tray of giant refrigerator. In the absence of any evidence, picking one over the other requires a lapse in logic. When asked who or what put us here the ONLY logical answer is "I don't know." Otherwise logical people who believe in God know their belief is illogical but they take comfort in believing anyway... and that's cool with me.

Plus, there are relatively few religious folks whose faith ends with a belief in some ambiguous transcendent spiritual authority. Most have attached a whole host of specifics (God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, Jesus is the risen son of God, God doesn't want us to eat lobster, we'll be reincarnated, women should be completely covered in public, etc.)

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

To be a Christian, Jew or Muslim you MUST believe in God. Period. That in and of itself is illogical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or that those who believe are stupid, but it's illogical and requires a suspension in critical thinking.

I'll say this one more time and then if necessary accept the fact that you just don't get it, or just don't accept it:

No, there is nothing illogical about believing in a God undetectable by science UNLESS you believe (arbitrarily and without factual or logical proof) that scientific thinking is the ONLY valid way of understanding reality.

It is not ILLogical or IRRational to think NON-logically or NON-rationally about an aspect of reality that is intrinsically not accessible to logic or rationality.


If you believe a priori that no such aspect of reality exists, that's your choice and it doesn't mean you're stupid, but it is an unprovable assumption based ultimately on faith.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I'll say this one more time and then if necessary accept the fact that you just don't get it, or just don't accept it:

No, there is nothing illogical about believing in a God undetectable by science UNLESS you believe (arbitrarily and without factual or logical proof) that scientific thinking is the ONLY valid way of understanding reality.

It is not ILLogical or IRRational to think NON-logically or NON-rationally about an aspect of reality that is intrinsically not accessible to logic or rationality.


If you believe a priori that no such aspect of reality exists, that's your choice and it doesn't mean you're stupid, but it is an unprovable assumption based ultimately on faith.

Screw having to prove that scientific thinking is the only valid way of understanding reality-Since we all pretty much agree that it a valid way to understand reality, it is now up to you to show that what you support is also a valid way to understand reality. In the poker game of reality, science has all it's cards face up and it looks like a winning hand to all, while religion insists that the game ain't over until all cards are shown...then insists that no one is allowed to see their cards.
We know how, when, where and why science works, and until you come up with an significant amount of evidence it's the only one worth considering.
Show your cards, or step away from the table.
.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

In the poker game of reality, science has all it's cards face up and it looks like a winning hand to all, while religion insists that the game ain't over until all cards are shown...then insists that no one is allowed to see their cards.
We know how, when, where and why science works, and until you come up with an significant amount of evidence it's the only one worth considering.
Show your cards, or step away from the table.
.

Great analogy.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I'll say this one more time and then if necessary accept the fact that you just don't get it, or just don't accept it:

No, there is nothing illogical about believing in a God undetectable by science UNLESS you believe (arbitrarily and without factual or logical proof) that scientific thinking is the ONLY valid way of understanding reality.

It is not ILLogical or IRRational to think NON-logically or NON-rationally about an aspect of reality that is intrinsically not accessible to logic or rationality.


If you believe a priori that no such aspect of reality exists, that's your choice and it doesn't mean you're stupid, but it is an unprovable assumption based ultimately on faith.

You've decided you want religious faith to be rational so you're twisting and bending logic back on itself to make it fit. If you think it's not irrational to think non-rationally, then you're trying to redefine those words to fit your ends. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the definitions of logic, reason and common sense.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Show your cards, or step away from the table.
.

Oh yeah, well who made the table‽

I notice that Damuri refuses to admit that he can't prove your pixies don't exist. And ITR refuses to admit that he actually has no factual evidence for his God existing. Or that he even has the necessary understanding of his perceived evidence to paraphrase it. Instead he will offer a list of books to read so you can understand his argument. Pathetic.

It really seems like the advocates for religion (at least in this thread) are unified in their desire to assert things then run away when asked for substantiation.




Religious dudes, if you can't back up your assertions, don't run away, face that fact, and realize that what you believe, might, just might, not be true.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I'll say this one more time and then if necessary accept the fact that you just don't get it, or just don't accept it:

No, there is nothing illogical about believing in a God undetectable by science UNLESS you believe (arbitrarily and without factual or logical proof) that scientific thinking is the ONLY valid way of understanding reality.

It is not ILLogical or IRRational to think NON-logically or NON-rationally about an aspect of reality that is intrinsically not accessible to logic or rationality.


If you believe a priori that no such aspect of reality exists, that's your choice and it doesn't mean you're stupid, but it is an unprovable assumption based ultimately on faith.

Religious faith is obviously nonsense. Look at the assertions. The factual claims of religion are now, almost all assumed to be metaphor. That's because they are (with the exception of things Bronze-Age men might know) wrong. And often hilariously so.

How can you even assert that religion is an accurate way to understand reality? I mean if accuracy isn't necessary, you are free to understand reality via Harry Potter or LOTR. And you can declare until you're blue in the face that Hogwarts is real or Gondor stands to protect us from the Orcs, but just have the dignity to admit to yourself that you're wrong.

In what possible way does religion allow you to accurately model reality? Hate gays, oppress women, kill apostates, pi = 3, wrong cosmology, wrong Earth history, wrong description of the origin of life on Earth, slavery is okay, women marry their rapists, murder people that work on the weekend, don't jerk off, yada yada yada.

Religion (specifically the Abrahamic ones) are utter drivel. You have to sift through them like a prospector to find anything that isn't drop-dead insane or evil. "Don't kill people." Okay, that's one, but it's not a religious thought. How is a collection of the backwards nonsense that a bunch of stinking men with worms, lice and teeth cemented into a single plaque encrusted horror, supposed to give us, the heirs to 10 thousand years of civilization anything worthwhile?

Do you look two thousand years back for medical advice? Do you build your bridges using the technology of two thousand years ago? How about your shoes, three thousand year old technology? Are your knives bronze? Are your clothes rough-spun togas? Do you wipe your ass with your left hand and no paper?

Then why listen to their insane and ignorant ideas on how to live your life? If one of these stinking men came up to you and tried to tell you how to build your house, you'd pat him on his greasy head and send him on his way. But whoah, if that same smelly twat tells you how the universe was formed, well , that bears some serious thought.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Sort of like we create our own reality?

There is even some scientific theory that supports that this is true (something about a cat in a box that may have died). We determine reality.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

How can you even assert that religion is an accurate way to understand reality?

I don't assert it. I'm just pointing out that there's no way to prove that there isn't some aspect of reality which is accurately understood by religion and not by science.

You cannot use logic and rationality to rule out the possibility that there might be aspects of reality to which logic and rationality do not apply. You certainly don't have to believe that any such aspects of reality do exist, but you can't prove they don't.

Sure, if I start from the premise that logical rational materialism is the only valid epistemological yardstick for measuring truth, then it naturally follows that all religious beliefs totally fail to meet its standard of validity and are obviously nothing but a load of made-up crap. But to assume that premise is begging the question.



I don't know why this fairly self-evident bit of elementary epistemology seems to bother you and some other atheists like Czarcasm and Victor Charlie so much. I'm an atheist too, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest to admit that although I believe my rational-materialist viewpoint adequately explains all of reality without any need for religious revelation or faith, it is logically impossible for me to prove that it does.

[kanicbird]

[quote=cmyk;15211686]So, seeing technology as an application of science, how can anybody really refute the effectiveness, and therefore the reliability and profound importance of the scientific method?[quote]

It is not the effectiveness, which is actually very small but real, but it's scope and application. It is just not that advanced that it is much more helpful to the individual then having a iPhone.

Also, science is unequivocally not a religion or anything like it. It's the antithesis of religion.

So you say, taking the word of others, in things you will never verify, on blind faith is not religions to you. This is why Jesus came =, to save the lost.

Religion sees a phenomenon and shoehorns it into some already preconceived notion. The more new discoveries and phenomenon, the more and more religion has to retcon it into their canon.

This may be true for a single religion, but this is also so for a mindset of science, they stubbornly hold on to false beliefs under evidence to the contrary till made to come kicking and screaming to admit they are wrong, Steven Hawkins with a black hole theory comes to mind on this, at least he lived long enough to admit his mistake.

Science is merely a very well established method to explain an observed phenomenon using the most objective and controlled ways available. Predicting and experimenting is necessary in order to support your hypothesis. Trial and error. Corroboration by anyone who might have the same wherewithall. The point of science is to accept, with giant open arms any new piece of verifiable evidence which can clarify existing theories or even upend our entire world view.

Again I'm not saying science is useless, just very limited, and we need so much more then what it can provide. Science is something ordained by God as just a partial solution, It was never meant to take on the scope that many ascribe to it and because of that it will fail.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Trans Fat Og

The problem is this: Way too many "enlightened" souls (by their own estimation) are fond of spreading their demonstrably false and demonstrably dangerous beliefs and misinformation by any means possible. Sometimes this fondness crosses over to stark determination.

We all should know that when it comes to disease we should say to that person 'in the name of Jesus be healed' and the person would be. Though many don't believe that, and some don't even know about that. But as shown in the parable of the good Samaritan, that person didn't know he could simply heal that person in distress in the name of Jesus, but still cared enough to provide a setting that one can recover, though slower then what we could do in the name of Jesus.

It is simply that motivation, a pure desire of one's heart to have another recover, regardless of belief that is accepting of science and voodoo doctrine.

When the backers of the irrational have significant power, they frequently, if not always, impose a ideological tyranny by brute force.

I admit this is a problem, though this also works with a scientific point of view, blurring the lines between science and religion.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I don't assert it. I'm just pointing out that there's no way to prove that there isn't some aspect of reality which is accurately understood by religion and not by science.

You cannot use logic and rationality to rule out the possibility that there might be aspects of reality to which logic and rationality do not apply. You certainly don't have to believe that any such aspects of reality do exist, but you can't prove they don't.

If "logic and rationality do not apply" to something, then we can say nothing whatsoever meaningful about it; including whether it exists or not. You yourself are trying to apply logic to something that you claim logic doesn't apply to.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I don't know why this fairly self-evident bit of elementary epistemology seems to bother you and some other atheists like Czarcasm and Victor Charlie so much.

Because virtually always it turns into an argument of the form "you can't prove <insert religious belief> is wrong, therefore it's right!" It's also not a argument that is used seriously very often; it's a rhetorical trick that is abandoned once the skeptic backs down, and the believer can start spouting all the things they "know" about what their god wants.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

There is even some scientific theory that supports that this is true (something about a cat in a box that may have died). We determine reality.

Schroedinger's Cat has nothing to do with self-created reality.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

If "logic and rationality do not apply" to something, then we can say nothing whatsoever meaningful about it; including whether it exists or not.

Not by the standards of logic and rationality, certainly. That's exactly my point. If there really is some kind of supernatural being somehow impacting reality in ways that logic and rationality can't measure, then it is absolutely inaccessible to the cognitive tools of science.

You are perfectly within your rights to draw your own epistemological boundaries for argument that exclude such possibilities, of course. You can certainly say up front "I make and interpret statements only in terms of logical rational-materialist principles: I reject any claims or terminology that are meaningless or false when interpreted by those principles, because I believe that they are the only valid standard of truth."

You're free to make that choice, but it is a choice, not a logically demonstrable universal epistemological necessity.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Because virtually always it turns into an argument of the form "you can't prove <insert religious belief> is wrong, therefore it's right!" It's also not a argument that is used seriously very often; it's a rhetorical trick that is abandoned once the skeptic backs down, and the believer can start spouting all the things they "know" about what their god wants.

Just because a lot of religious believers argue dishonestly is no reason for me to imitate them. If I believe something I can't prove, I'm going to admit it.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Not by the standards of logic and rationality, certainly. That's exactly my point. If there really is some kind of supernatural being somehow impacting reality in ways that logic and rationality can't measure, then it is absolutely inaccessible to the cognitive tools of science.

It's absolutely inaccessible, period. The processes of our brain right down to the neurons use logic; even the laws of physics are rational. You aren't talking about any human religion; you are talking about Lovecraftian eldritch horror. If something is beyond logic then a religious person couldn't understand it any more than I can.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

You are perfectly within your rights to draw your own epistemological boundaries for argument that exclude such possibilities, of course. You can certainly say up front "I make and interpret statements only in terms of logical rational-materialist principles: I reject any claims or terminology that are meaningless or false when interpreted by those principles, because I believe that they are the only valid standard of truth."

You're free to make that choice, but it is a choice, not a logically demonstrable universal epistemological necessity.

Again; such arguments are without meaning because you claim that whatever-it-is is beyond logic and rationality. Therefore, you can't talk about it using logic and reason like you are. Saying that you can't prove or disprove that something beyond logic and reason exists using science or reason is in itself an attempt to use logic on something you say logic does not apply to.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Again; such arguments are without meaning because you claim that whatever-it-is is beyond logic and rationality. Therefore, you can't talk about it using logic and reason like you are. Saying that you can't prove or disprove that something beyond logic and reason exists using science or reason is in itself an attempt to use logic on something you say logic does not apply to.

Nope. The mere idea that there might be something outside the scope of reason is not per se irrational, although it would be irrational to attempt to use reason to determine the truth of statements about any such something.

In fact, some epistemologists argue that the idea of something existing outside the scope of reason is not only rational but necessary: that is, if you don't rationally acknowledge that there may be something outside the scope of reason, you end up with an infinite regress.

[BigT]

Well, as I usually do, I'm going to answer the question without getting into anything you guys are getting into, because you are missing something.

There is no logical reason for someone, once convinced that curses cause illness, to disbelieve this concept based on current scientific thinking. The idea that curses cause illness is not falsifiable. The fact that germs or other causes have been discovered means nothing, because perhaps only the cursed have these causes. And if you try an actual scientific experiment where you curse some people and not others and see if one gets sick more often, you still have the problem that, as the belief usually goes, it is God or Satan or some other supernatural entity that curses or at least decides if a curse is valid.

Now, obviously, humans are not perfectly logical, and some will be convinced. And those will convince others. That's why the belief is no longer held. But you guys are functioning under a false premise that God and disease curses are fundamentally any different. Both are outside the purview of science.

EDIT: Not outside rational/materialism, but outside of science. These are not the same thing. rationalism/materialism is not scientific either, as no test can prove them correct.