First just let me say that I fully support people to hold their own individual beliefs on religion and even to even celebrate their religion in a public and community based manner.
But how can the religious individuals hope to win an open an honest debate with secular individuals? The very basis of religious viewpoint is holding unfalsifiable beliefs that are totally unsupported by evidence (Yahweh wrote this book or Allah wrote this one, some guy named Jesus was really God). In fact, many of the claims of the religious go against the evidence, but because the rationalizing of many of the religious these contradictions are just pushed aside.
How can the religious hope even participate in a rational debate much less win it? The answer is that they cannot. That is why they have decided to frame this as a war. Might makes right in a war. There are no rules. It is win at all costs. If you know there is no rational evidence supported basis to your beleifs you cannot go into a debate.
The war of the religious is not just about prayer in school, stem research, evolution it is really about an attack on rational thought. The idea that a cracker can turn into God is just crazy. It should be called such. The same is true of the idea that a blastocyst has a soul. Or that evolution is wrong. Or that Jesus is the loves someone alive today. Tolerance of such belief is just wrong. These beliefs are no less crazy than the idea that killing innocent people will get you 72 virgins. The only difference is the consequences. We need to say all these things are crazy and the people that believe them have turned their backs on rationality.
The religious have not only turned their backs on rationality; they hold this up as a virtue. This is crazy. Everything someone says something based on fatih they should be called out to present evidence for their belief. If they cannot back it up they should not be taken as a serious person. Faith has no place in rational debate.
My point is that people that hold unjustified beliefs should not be taken as serious people. If someone is going to base his most important beliefs on faith instead of rationally looking at the evidence he is a fool and should not should not be listened to. It is time to stop dancing around this issue. Every rational person should be willing to say an Catholic that believes a cracker actually become the flesh of God is as crazy as Muslim that believes killing people will get him 72 virgins in heaven.
The entire basis of the religious world view is irrational faith. We need stop refusing to challenge these beliefs. We need to stop saying that we should tolerate faith. Every Catholic that actually believes that a cracker becomes the flesh of God should be called out to defend this view with evidence.
While it is true that faith has no place in a debate based on empirical evidence, I think you are making an assumption that there is no possibility that faith exists due to something of which we are unaware.
Because it is fresh in my mind I will use a spider’s web as an example. The spider knows it must build the web, and it knows how to build the web, even though it lacks the knowledge as to how that information exists within it’s brain. As human’s we may someday determine exactly how that information is coded genetically, but for now it’s just an educated guess.
So it’s possible people can have accurate information with no apparent logical source based on what we know today.
Just because somebody puts forth and defends one (probably) erroneous view does not automatically make them a total loon, and it does not mean that every theist should be browbeat until they deny their personal beliefs.
I mean, I sometimes entertain the notion that people are in general good, and therefore I shouldn’t attempt to exterminate humanity. This view is clearly an unsubstantiated view; there are copious quantities of contrary evidence to it, and heck, the word “good” in it is as undefined as “God” ever was! Does my occasional entertainment of this bizarre view mean that you should disregard me entirely, even when I’m doing something relatively pedestrian, unrelated to my opinions on wether humanity should be allowed to survive?
Save the hatred for religion for when the True Believers are bashing you with it. Otherwise, leave the people to believe in fairies in peace.
Is your “occasional entertainment” the same as an absolute belief in the idea? No. In fact, you seem to admit that you know that believing in the idea is not justified. When moderate religious believers claim and other promoters of navie tolerance say that we cannot attack the crazy ideas of people that believe in fairies and crackers becoming God, they cannot then say we can attack those that hold equally crazy ideas about getting rewarded with virigns for killing. All these ideas are equally crazy. The only difference is consequences. They have no place in a world where we know about physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc.
Hey now, I don’t know that belief X is not a justified belief; I just know that it hasn’t been justified adequately to me. I do not claim to be the be-all or end-all of all knowledge here.
And crazy ideas do have a place in the cold, harsh world of science. It’s called “why not”. As long as they’re not hurting you, who cares if somebody believes in God, extraterrestrial life, ESP, fairies, hobbits, the Force, or liberalism? It’s not your problem.
You do know it is not justified by the available evidence. Modern atomic theory would not have been something that Julius Cesar could have held as a justified belief because when he lived there was not enough available evidence to justifiy the belief. Where to believe in something other than modern atomic theory today after being presented with the evidence is just crazy. It all about the evidence (and using that evidence in rational manner). As more evidence comes in an unjustified belief may become justified. (This is not to say all unjustified beliefs are on the same footing. Some are better than others based on the available evidence.)
When we refuse to attack the truth of unjustified beliefs that we call “harmless” it leaves us in no position to attack the truth of unjustified beleifs that we do call “harmful.” We put ourselves in the position of attacking the consequences of unjustified beliefs not the truth of the beliefs.
Religion, for me, is a philosophy, not science, and is used as a “guide” in how to conduct one’s daily affairs.
OP: Let’s say I was hired to help you at work. Let’s say we share some of the same interests, for example sky diving:
“Hey, that’s great, little dude! How 'bout we go jumping this Sunday morning?”
And I reply “Oh, wow! Thanks! Umm, but I gotta go to church. How about Saturday?”
Now, are you going to suddenly think I’m an idiot, and not worthy of your friendship?
If my regular, daily demeanor was such that you thought it might be cool to invite me to a activity outside of work, haven’t I already proven (by deed) what kind of guy I am?
I don’t have all evidence available to me, and I don’t have the same evidence available to me that’s available to theist X. Sure, I may have a hundred thousand scientists on my side, but if he can hear the voice of God and chats with Him regularly, why the heck should he choose me and my crazy scientific allegations over his personal experience? I obviously have an agenda.
And this is a problem why? If we really tracked down and blocked every case where crazy opinions have negative effects (which we most assuredly don’t do currently, at least in the USA) then what harm would there be in letting them impotently cling to their effectless beliefs?
Are you militantly opposed to the widespread progation of belief in Santa to the same degree you oppose religion? If it’s not the consequences of the belief that you’re worried about, then why would you differ between the two?
Ask theist X for his evidence. Ask a Catholic for his evidence that a cracker becomes God. Ask a Muslim terrorist for his evidence that God will reward him with 72 virgins. Ask a George Bush for his evidence that a blastocyst has a soul.
[quote]
And this is a problem why? If we really tracked down and blocked every case where crazy opinions have negative effects (which we most assuredly don’t do currently, at least in the USA) then what harm would there be in letting them impotently cling to their effectless beliefs?
[/quote[
Because you are only going after the consequences of the specific beleifs. You are not going at the root of the problem which is unjustified beliefs. As new unjustified beliefs come up we have no idea if they will led to a soup kitchen or a concentration camp.
I don’t think that any adult (there are a few with problems) really believe that Santa actually exists. Santa is just a game people play with children. It is a belief that we know will be obliterated. I don’t support the idea of lying to children, but Santa is not a belief that is held in the same way as religious belief. Only children actually beleive and they easily give up the belief when presented with the evidence.
So do you apply this logic to religion only? I mean if someone thinks black holes can allow you to time travel, but they dont have solid, tested proof, are they crazy? Should everything they say and do be now ignored?
should no one, ever, hold an ideal or belief that hasn’t already been fully tested and proved? Where exactly do you draw the line?
Yeah but conversely in the long hard road of human history, those who hold beliefs however irrational that they are willing to fight and die for will win wars. I’m not aware of any debate that ever wiped a nation off the face of the earth, extinguished any culture or genocidally decimated entire peoples. Wars, now… on the other hand…
That guy who believes in the 72 virgin death fest is going to take you out, since… you know… he can’t out debate you and he has no desire to. Are you going to fight him, die, or convert? If you fight him, it is a war and one you’ll probably lose right now being the minority. If you just die, it’s a war he wins and you become a tragic footnote. Converting has worked historically, but you might have done better by not provoking the crazy in the first place.
Progress is made incrementally and over time by picking your battles. Failing to distinguish between relatively harmless belief systems and those that are fundamentally at odds with human rights and dignity is going to get you nowhere, fast. You HAVE to attack the real world consequences first before you can hope to get a world where you are safe to attack the fundamental belief structures.
See comment above that not all unjustified beliefs are the same. It would depend on how strongly they held that view do they only see it as a possibility, how they react to evidence that points in the other direction, how much evidence they have that what they believe is possible is actually possible, have they framed the idea in a way that can be tested and falsified in princple, and other factors.
This logic applies to any belief, but religious beliefs (for the most part) are specifically based on faith. The religious view rejects the very idea of rationally basing beliefs on testable evidence.
And I never said that eveything they say should be ignored. Just that they should not be taken as a serious person.
Kary Mullis believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. This is a stupid belief. However, Kary Mullis devised and patented PCR, a molecular biology technique that I rely on constantly. So should I not take him seriously the next time he comes up with something interesting? Beliefs should be evaluated on their merit, not on the personal history of the person espousing them.
I dont even know where to begin, so I wont, except to say that some of the greatest minds of human history have been people of faith. What would the world be like today if they were not take seriously?
Obviously, faith for some people takes a dark and nasty turn. But what you are suggesting is short sighted and ignorant in the extreme. A full 90%+ of the people in the world believe in supreme being of some kind, or afterlife, etc… It is silly to think you can just push them off to the side and not take them seriously.
And I’d get back a response that makes perfect sense to them; at least as much as my (fallacious) arguments from authority do.
You do realize that you have an unjustified faith in the accuracy of science that is supported by the fallacious assumption that the fact that all the parts that you have personally tested are true, implies that all the parts you have not personally tested are also true.
You should definitely abandon all scientific authority and restrict yourself only to believing things you can prove in your garage. Since you’re so dead set on not believing any unjustified evidence, even if it doesn’t hurt anyone and seems to work for you, after all.
And every person might become a saint (heh) or a criminal. I assume you support the pre-emptive incarceration and execution of all persons, since you have no reason to believe they will not become murders? (All murderers are people, after all.)
I, for one, will not react to someone who has not yet acted.
So what you’re saying is, you don’t care if the kids believe, since there are no consequences from their period of belief.
Are you as cavalier about preachers, missionaries, and proselytizers as you are about those evil santa-propogating parents? If not, why not?
This is the very reason we need to stop tolerating people that hold irrational beliefs. They need to be marginalized if we are ever going to get to place where we stop these stop fights over unjustified beliefs.We have made no progress in this area and will continue to fall into the same trap until get rid of unjustified beliefs.
I agree that we need to pick our battles. Obviously militant Islam is needs to directly addressed right now. So does the stupid and criminal activity of the Catholic Church in Africa (opposing condom use), but until we address the root of the problem these problems will just coming up.
Aunt Milly seems pretty harmless going to church every week, but she probably supports denying equal right to gays based on her unjustified beliefs (no marriage). Or maybe she is a Catholic and gives money that will help stop condom use or oppose stem cell research. Look at the current HPV vaccine controversy. These beliefs that start of “harmless” can become deadly.
The moderates that do not support positions like that are still part of the problem because they do not want Aunt Milly called out to justifiy her beliefs. They say it is a matter of faith.
Do you really think Kary Mullis is a serious person?
I am sure that PCR is fully supported by evidence. That does not mean that Kary Mullis is not a nut. Would you want Kary Mullis to be a position of authority in public policy? Would you want Kary Mullis to be your Senator? Why or why not?
