# Culture War - Religious cannot win a debate so they start a war. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864 "2006-12-12T20:24:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/161 "2006-12-15T18:23:43Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] I, as of yet, have not submitted much to the peer review process, though I hope to see several papers published in the near future. However, in general your statement is wrong. A lot of scientific publications contain only material that’s been known for decades. [/quote] I shouldn’t but I can’t resist butting in here. **ITR champion** , submitting a couple of papers does not make you an expert in the publications process. I’ve published a bunch of papers, have reviewed well over a hundred (probably a couple of hundred) and I’ve read thousands of reviews as a program commttee member, progam chair, and journal editor. I’m not a physicist, but I can’t believe physics is much different from my field. First, please support your statement that some journals only contain material know for decades. This sounds extremely unlikely. > [@](#): > > Now let me give you some examples. [Take this paper](http://www.tufts.edu/~kruane01/papers/localconnfinal.pdf). Much of it is wrong. There are at least ten major mistakes visible in it. Yet it’s peer reviewed, refereed, the whole nine yards. So since the mistakes are there and they’ve been noticed, according to your theory they should have been corrected. Yet the author still has the error-riddled paper right there on her website. How do you explain that? > Or, jumping to the field of computer science, consider [ISAKMPD](http://resin.csoft.net/cgi-bin/man.cgi?section=8&topic=isakmpd) . I had lots of fun with this product a few years back. My coworkers and I discovered numerous flaws in the code and errors in the man pages and white papers. All of the flaws are documented and published on the internet, yet they don’t get fixed. How does that square with your claim that “If someone publishes X, and someone else can show that X is wrong, X is discarded”? The statement about science being self-correcting does not mean that no errors are ever published. Not all reviewers take days to reproduce the math in a paper. In fact, in my experience, the more senior the reviewer the less time is spent. I get sometimes three or four papers at once to review, which I need to find time for. You look for originality, a good logical argument, and plausibility. If a paper seems really important you might find more time for it, but those are very, very rare. I’ve seen way too many one line reviews. Grad students and new PhDs seem to spend more time, though they often are big nit pickers. Most papers are published to be forgotten. Errors in them will never be corrected, but it won’t matter. Errors in papers people actually use will be discovered and corrected fairly quickly. I can give you a few examples if you wish. And using code as an example is just laughable. > [@](#): > > So labs hire people who produce stuff that’s known not to work? Doesn’t sound too rational to me. Not work in the sense of botching an experiment - no. Not work in the sense of an experiment not turning out as hoped. Yes. Anyone with 100% success in demonstrating hypotheses is not being creative enough. > [@](#): > > If someone published something in quantuum physics I wouldn’t have much hope. In quantum physics, on the other hand, I can understand a decent amount. I’m all for quantum physicists reading and reviewing quantum physics papers. I just don’t see any reason why the papers should be concealed from all non-physicists. And yet they mostly are. Certainly there’d be no harm in publishing all journal articles on the net. Yet it hasn’t happened for most journals, and when it does the cost for accessing the papers is often absurdly high. Here’s the real kicker. When you’ve been on the Editorial Board of a journal, get back to us. No one is hiding physics papers from non-physicists - I can go to the Stanford library and read all I want. Authors in my field typically put their papers on their web sites. Journals and professional societies can’t afford to give away stuff for free. In fact, more mass libray type of on-line subscriptions is a real problem for journal budgets. Reviews are done for free, authors pay page charges, but there is usually a professional editorial staff who must get paid, in addition to publication and distribution charges. Specialized journals have low circulation - in my field, the more archival a journal is, the fewer people read it. You’re hardly the first young scientist who wants everything on the web for free. I’m not saying the prices of for-profit journals aren’t outrageous, but I don’t know their cost model. I’ve been involved with journals published by professional societies, which are cheaper but which get subsidised by broader circulation more popular magazines. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/162 "2006-12-15T18:49:55Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] I await an explanation for why you can’t present these debunkings, or post a link to them, or tell me what book or article they were published in. If, in your perspective, these authors have been debunked, but the debunkings exist only in forms that can’t be shown to anyone other than yourself, that doesn’t say much for the correctness of your perspective. [/QUOTE] Fine, since you seem reluctant to set forth an actual argument and completely fail to actually make a point, Ill start. Why dont we start with Aquinas five proofs of gods existence. Ill assume youve read them. 1. The argument from motion. Fails on its own logic: if there is an unmoved mover, then the first part of the argument is false. 2. The causation of existance. Exact same thing: if there an uncaused cause, then the first part of the argument is false. 3. Contingent and necessary objects. Again, same thing. 4. The argument from degrees and perfection. Appeal to emotion. He feels there should be an ideal, so he states there is, and that ideal is god. 5. The argument from intelligent design. Finally, his arguments only attempt to show a superior being. Even if one his points was true, all it would show was there was something superior, not that his version of god existed. Appeal to ignorance. He doesnt understand how the universe works, so he states that something must have made it, and that something must be god. There. This is something that can be found anywhere. Id like to be able point to a book and say ‘here he wrote it’, but I cant, Ive read it in lots of places. > [@](#): > > I did not use an ad hominem attack. You asserted that all theology is garbage based solely on the fact that you believe that all theology is garbage (see post 95). Given the rather extraordinary nature of this claim, it’s worth asking whether you have sufficient intelligence to justify making it. No, thats still the definition of an ad hominem attack. Youre questioning my argument not the basis of the argument itself, but on the idea that I Im too stupid to be able to say what I did. > [@](#): > > You’ll surely agree that only an extremely smart person can have their single opinion outweight the opinions of billions. No, it only takes a correct person to have their single opinion outweight the opinions of billions. Smart has nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > It was therefore worth investigation whether you qualify as an extremely smart person, and I humbly submit that I proved the answer to be no. Even more. Youre just not very good at this argument thing are you? > [@](#): > > As for appeal to popularity, it’s not a fallacy in this circumstance. Billions of people, over 2000 years, in thousands of cultures have believed the central tenets of Christianity and have read and respected these works of theology we’re discussing. To say, as **Der** did, that all these people are “lying or delusional”, is just plain nuts. Billions of people across 2000 years in thousands of different cultures could not all agree to tell the same lies, nor would they if they could. Nor could they all be having a delusion, because the delusion would have to spring originally from a lie, and we’d be back to the problem of an impossible number of people all agreeing on the same lie. Bwahahahaha is that your argument? Really? Billions of people believed that the sun went around the earth, and then it was proven that it didnt. Did their opinions make them right? Did the number of people who thought it make it so? If billions of people believe that a table is made of oak, will it make it so, regardless of what it is actually made of? How many people have believed the tenets of Islam, or Bhuddism, or Egyptian mythology? Did thier belief make it right? This is textbook appeal to popularity. > [@](#): > > Suffice to say, I know that angry teenage atheists have no qualms about lying, particularly in debates about religion. You think you can gain some credibility by claiming to have extensive experinece in this or that, since there’s no way to check in an anonymous online debate. You neglected to consider the fact that some of us aren’t dumb enough to fall for that. So Im an angry teenage athiest am I? Well, 1 out of the 3 isnt bad. Oh wait, it is. Is this really all you have? Ad hominem after ad hominem? I had hoped for more with someone with so much fire, so much anger. Wait, anger. Hmm… nah. > [@](#): > > You’re so contemptuous of religion that you can’t even hold your temper for a few minutes while writing a post in an online debate. Yet in real life you’re so calm and intellectually curious that you spent several hours a week in pleasant debate just to expand your horizons in a topic that you view as total baloney? I think not. Even more. Look, this is getting old. Name calling in the guise of big words is still name calling. You know jack shit about me, and judging by the quality of your posts Id like to keep it that way. Is this what passes for intelligent debate where you come from? > [@](#): > > Ah, the good old ‘it’s sarcasm’ whenever you get caught lying. Was your false claim to being an expert on Augustine and Aquinas also intended as scornful irony? Are you serious? Do you actually think that I would claim that someone today would burn me at the stake for contradicting a belief? Wow. Youre just looking at tiny little things to attack me on arent you? Youre not even worried about the argument anymore, youre just screaming diatribe over the internet to someone who dared to call you wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/163 "2006-12-15T18:51:13Z")
Damn, not being able to edit your posts sucks. Should look like this: Why dont we start with Aquinas five proofs of gods existence. Ill assume youve read them. 1. The argument from motion. Fails on its own logic: if there is an unmoved mover, then the first part of the argument is false. 2. The causation of existance. Exact same thing: if there an uncaused cause, then the first part of the argument is false. 3. Contingent and necessary objects. Again, same thing. 4. The argument from degrees and perfection. Appeal to emotion. He feels there should be an ideal, so he states there is, and that ideal is god. 5. The argument from intelligent design. Appeal to ignorance. He doesnt understand how the universe works, so he states that something must have made it, and that something must be god. Finally, his arguments only attempt to show a superior being. Even if one his points was true, all it would show was there was something superior, not that his version of god existed. ---
**Author:** ![Ammonius\_Saccus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@Ammonius\_Saccus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ammonius_Saccus)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/164 "2006-12-15T18:59:41Z")
I just to point out (again) that not every belief has to be held up to the scientific method. I gave the example loving your mother. You do not need to use science to justify that belief. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/165 "2006-12-15T19:00:06Z")
**hotflung** , I love you dearly, and agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, and I certainly don’t want to start a separate thread about it . . . But will you _please_ take the extra second or two and put apostrophes in your contractions? Your posts are really hard to read as-is, and as unfair as it seems, your arguments are _not_ being helped by the lack of punctuation. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/166 "2006-12-15T19:27:32Z")
Sorry. I tend to take shortcuts when I type and thats just one of them. Ill try to crank up the grammer a notch or two. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/167 "2006-12-15T19:42:34Z")
[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus] I just to point out (again) that not every belief has to be held up to the scientific method. I gave the example loving your mother. You do not need to use science to justify that belief. [/QUOTE] Why not? If your mother were horribly abusive, for example, understanding that “love” is a biochemical process that everybody naturally feels for their relatives despite what they sometimes may do may make it easier to deal with your conflicted feelings about her. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/168 "2006-12-15T20:31:06Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Appeal to authority. I will accept being told ‘Theres peanut butter on the table’ from an authority without too much trouble, but being told ‘theres an invisible guy up in the sky who loves you and will send you to burn forever if you dont follow these rules’ is going to take a whole heck of a lot of authority before Ill accept that. The authority has to have a bearing on the belief conferred. Someone who was just in the kitchen will do for the peanut butter, but what kind of authority would qualify for telling people about something like god? Someone who’s seen it? All we have is their word. A book written by god? Again, just their word. Accepting something like god from an inadaquate authority is just blind unreasoning acceptance. [/QUOTE] Are you trying to say that _I’m_ fallaciously appealing to authority? I’m telling you that everyone appeals to authority. Ev. Er. Y. Body. And comparing peanut butter to God is not a reasonable analogy; that’s independently verifiable. More comparable is believing in atoms, if you don’t happen to have one of those spectacularly expensive microscopes. Have you seen an atom? I haven’t. I believe in them anyway. Based on arguments to authority. Is everyone who believes in atoms based only on what they learned in high school insane? And, regarding the ‘having to have bearing on belief conferred’, in virtually all cases the indoctrinating parent claims to have first-hand, personal experience with god. Just like that guy with the peanut butter. (Not to pretend that your average small child requires ther mommy to have a degree in a subject to believe them about it.) [QUOTE=hotflungwok] How about ‘science works’? Your computer works, your phone works, your car works. Prayer does not work. I dont ‘believe’ my computer will work, I know it. I dont have to believe. Its worked 1000s of times before, and unless something physical goes wrong with it, I know it will work again. Prayer has no better than random chance success. [/QUOTE] And any theist worth his faith will inform you with absolute honesty that prayer works, and has worked for him in _practice_. They’ll even have anecdotes. They prayed to get better, and lo and behold, they’re not dead. They prayed for strength, and survived. They prayed that they’d get a job, and they got it. A prayer didn’t get answered? There’s already a half dozen apologies for that at the ready, written right into their faith. “It’s just 'cause it’s Windows.” “Must be a line down.” “A fuse blew.” (Oh, wait, those are _your_ apologies.) Between a ready-made explaination for prayer failure, and the ‘van on the corner’ effect, what you call random chance of success they call _working_. [QUOTE=hotflungwok] So what about the argument: A) Pious people lack (correct) justification for thier beliefs. B) Person who lack (correct) justification for their beliefs are insane .: Pious people are insane. [/QUOTE] While this argument is not fallacious, it is also not valid, on account of premise B being false. Everyone operates on insufficiently proven princibles and has insufficiently proven beliefs. Therefore, by premise B, everyone is insane. (You’re not the first person here to call yourself insane. Don’t worry about it too much; just discard the crappy argument.) Part of the problem with this whole ‘war on religion’ thing we’ve got going on here is that it’s too broad-based. If you want a prayer (heh) of a chance of establishing a supportable position, focus! Call literalists insane. Call 6000-year crationsists insane. (The most you can _actually_ hope for is deluded, but you’d have a better shot at least.) But don’t try to nail that theistic scientist over there. It’s a losing battle. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/169 "2006-12-15T21:35:11Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] Are you trying to say that _I’m_ fallaciously appealing to authority? I’m telling you that everyone appeals to authority. Ev. Er. Y. Body. [/QUOTE] Sort of, I guess its not quite what you were doing. I agree that people normally accept things taught to them by their parents, but I also think that after a certain point it becomes blind acceptance. Parents arent authority by expertise, theyre authority by trust. If you never question anything they say, then youre taking that too far, and it could be considered insanity. My parents told me about Santa Claus, and no one is upset that I stopped believing in him. > [@](#): > > And comparing peanut butter to God is not a reasonable analogy; that’s independently verifiable. It is a valid comparison precisely because god is not independently verifiable. I was trying to point out the level of authority required for different claims. If god isnt independently verifiable, who can be an authority on it? > [@](#): > > More comparable is believing in atoms, if you don’t happen to have one of those spectacularly expensive microscopes. Have you seen an atom? I haven’t. I believe in them anyway. Based on arguments to authority. Is everyone who believes in atoms based only on what they learned in high school insane? But the difference between authority saying ‘theres a god’ and authority saying ‘there are atoms’ is that the people espousing the atoms can actually give you real evidence and demonstrations based on that idea. Nuclear power, etc. The authority espousing god cannot. I trust an authority that actually has evidence much more readily than one that does not. I question that there can be an authority on god. > [@](#): > > And, regarding the ‘having to have bearing on belief conferred’, in virtually all cases the indoctrinating parent claims to have first-hand, personal experience with god. Just like that guy with the peanut butter. (Not to pretend that your average small child requires ther mommy to have a degree in a subject to believe them about it.) But do they actually have first hand personal experience with god? > [@](#): > > A prayer didn’t get answered? There’s already a half dozen apologies for that at the ready, written right into their faith. “It’s just 'cause it’s Windows.” “Must be a line down.” “A fuse blew.” (Oh, wait, those are _your_ apologies.) Between a ready-made explaination for prayer failure, and the ‘van on the corner’ effect, what you call random chance of success they call _working_. Yeah, those are ‘apologies’, not known repeatable cases. If something goes wrong with my computer, I can fix it. If a part breaks, I can replace it. Then it works again. Comparing computer problems with prayer problems is laughable. Prayer behaves exactly as if the prayer prayed to god, cthulhu, a horseshoe, or did nothing at all. If something good happens, they praise god for answering the prayers, and how well prayer worked. But when nothing happens, you get to hear all kinds of excuses proclaiming things they have no knowledge of to begin with: god has a plan, sometimes the answer is no, etc. > [@](#): > > While this argument is not fallacious, it is also not valid, on account of premise B being false. Everyone operates on insufficiently proven princibles and has insufficiently proven beliefs. Therefore, by premise B, everyone is insane. (You’re not the first person here to call yourself insane. Don’t worry about it too much; just discard the crappy argument.) I dont think premise B is false. If someone has incorrect justification for a belief, and believes it anyway, thats insanity. An exception would be someone who doesnt know that their justification is incorrect. Of course, I would say that blind acceptance is a bit insane. There is no evidence for god, prayer, etc. And in spite of this, holding the belief that god, prayer, etc is real, is insane. I’m not really sure how to put this in logical format. I’ll have to think about it. > [@](#): > > Part of the problem with this whole ‘war on religion’ thing we’ve got going on here is that it’s too broad-based. If you want a prayer (heh) of a chance of establishing a supportable position, focus! Call literalists insane. Call 6000-year crationsists insane. (The most you can _actually_ hope for is deluded, but you’d have a better shot at least.) But don’t try to nail that theistic scientist over there. It’s a losing battle. Isnt delusion a form of insanity? I think thats whats being said here. Its the belief in the face of absolutely no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/170 "2006-12-15T22:46:15Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Sort of, I guess its not quite what you were doing. I agree that people normally accept things taught to them by their parents, but I also think that after a certain point it becomes blind acceptance. Parents arent authority by expertise, theyre authority by trust. If you never question anything they say, then youre taking that too far, and it could be considered insanity. My parents told me about Santa Claus, and no one is upset that I stopped believing in him. [/QUOTE] Of course, you only stopped believing in Santa Claus because a seed of doubt was planted in your mind by something, and you then proceeded to find further adequate evidence to support your new conclusion. Religious people are told _not_ to look for such evidence, and are given explanations for most of the problems they might encounter. Following such advice, while perhaps inadvisable, is not _insane_. [QUOTE=hotflungwok] It is a valid comparison precisely because god is not independently verifiable. I was trying to point out the level of authority required for different claims. If god isnt independently verifiable, who can be an authority on it? [/QUOTE] Oh, so that was what your point was. To a child who (so far as they know) cannot independently verify God, accepting the assertion of a person who claims to _have_ personally experienced God is no more farcical than you believing the dude who claims to have seen the peanut butter. It’s first-hand witness testimony either way. Of course, sooner or later your average religoius person graduates to relying on the battery of their own personal experiences as interpreted by the rules of the world as they understand it. (The doing of which is, again, not insane.) [QUOTE=hotflungwok] But the difference between authority saying ‘theres a god’ and authority saying ‘there are atoms’ is that the people espousing the atoms can actually give you real evidence and demonstrations based on that idea. Nuclear power, etc. The authority espousing god cannot. I trust an authority that actually has evidence much more readily than one that does not. I question that there can be an authority on god. [/QUOTE] Not the people who told _me_ there were atoms. I assure you there was not a single nuclear reactor in my high school classroom. (We didn’t even have a particle accelerator! Lousy cheap school…) Your average church has a few hundred thousand testimonials as to the truth of it, including your beloved parents. Anecdotes abound, as well. (“I prayed and then got better!” can be absolutely true, and is only bad if you’ve been trained to default to coincicence as an explantion.) Whether you like it or not, all of this falls under the definition of ‘evidence’. Is it good evidence? Probably not as good as meeting God personally, but it’s better than nothing. Also, the person espousing god _can_ give you a test to run; pray with all your heart, and you’ll get results. If you don’t get results, the problem is not in the principle; it’s in the text; you didn’t follow the steps properly. First get credulous enough to believe anything, and then try again. Maybe add in a dash of emotional breakdown and desperation, that usually helps. It’ll work eventually. (Or maybe you’ll die first, but that’s _your_ failure, not the principle.) [QUOTE=hotflungwok] But do they actually have first hand personal experience with god? [/QUOTE] I assure you, you don’t have enough evidence to answer this question in the negative, and neither does anybody else. It’s simple unverifiable first-hand testimony, and unless you can catch them making blazing factual errors in their claims, they cannot be proven to be lying. Unless somebody’s proven that we know about everything that exists in and out of our universe when I wasn’t looking? [QUOTE=hotflungwok] Yeah, those are ‘apologies’, not known repeatable cases. If something goes wrong with my computer, I can fix it. If a part breaks, I can replace it. Then it works again. [/QUOTE] And they pray again, and it maybe works this time. If not, get more faith, or accept that it’s better overall if you don’t get what you want. And if you pick up your phone and get no dial tone, I seriously doubt that you go out to the main line and repair the break. No, you get on some other phone and appeal to a higher power, and lo and behold, based on the capricious will of the phone company and whether you’ve been faithful with your payments, your service may be restored. Or not. AT&T works in mysterious ways. With me, my car is the same (as I’m no mechanic). I presume that the reasons for the failure are knowable, but I don’t know them myself. So I appeal to a mechanic, and sometimes his efforts are immidiately successful, sometimes not. (I recall the month I went through four alternator belts.) Because he is not perfectly reliable, am I insane to think that my auto mechanic knows more about cars than I? [QUOTE=hotflungwok] Comparing computer problems with prayer problems is laughable. Prayer behaves exactly as if the prayer prayed to god, cthulhu, a horseshoe, or did nothing at all. If something good happens, they praise god for answering the prayers, and how well prayer worked. But when nothing happens, you get to hear all kinds of excuses proclaiming things they have no knowledge of to begin with: god has a plan, sometimes the answer is no, etc. [/QUOTE] To a person with little knowledge of computers, the computer is as inexplicable and capricious as your average diety, and depending on your OS, perhaps _less_ helpful. And if you think that’s bad, look at the Lotto! People keep praying to that and coming up dry. Perhaps they’re stupid to do so, but are they insane to think that it is _possible_ that one day their appeal will be rewarded with magnificent reward and riches? Is belief that the lotto occasionally pays out _insane_? Infrequency of success is no guarantee that the suppositions feuling the attempt are false. [QUOTE=hotflungwok] I dont think premise B is false. If someone has incorrect justification for a belief, and believes it anyway, thats insanity. An exception would be someone who doesnt know that their justification is incorrect. Of course, I would say that blind acceptance is a bit insane. There is no evidence for god, prayer, etc. And in spite of this, holding the belief that god, prayer, etc is real, is insane. I’m not really sure how to put this in logical format. I’ll have to think about it. [/QUOTE] Take your time. It should be noted, though, that many of the reasons people have for believing in God are impossible to prove false. So, anybody believing based on such a rationale would fall under your exception. [QUOTE=hotflungwok] Isnt delusion a form of insanity? I think thats whats being said here. Its the belief in the face of absolutely no evidence. [/QUOTE] Curse this english language! I am using ‘deluded’ as its past-tense verb form, not in its noun form. I understand that form (as in ‘he deluded her’) to mean something like ‘very badly decieved’. That was what I intended, anyway. And I don’t think that’s the same as being insane. Now, I’m not saying these people are _right_. (They can’t possibly _all_ be right.) I’d even be perfectly happy with you declaring that they’re **stupid**. (Particularly if you focus on ones that are disregarding other more conventionally compelling evidence due to preference for their testimonails and whatnot.) But _insane_? No. That’s too far; nothing more than an unfounded ad-hominem. And who needs those? ---
**Author:** ![johnny\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@johnny\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnny_M)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/171 "2006-12-15T23:14:07Z")
Jesus is acknowledged in america everyday. Just look at a calander and tell me where the date derives from, " Jesus Christ". So when you look at a calander right a check or get your pay check thank Jesus for the date. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/172 "2006-12-15T23:34:44Z")
[QUOTE=johnny M] Jesus is acknowledged in america everyday. Just look at a calander and tell me where the date derives from, " Jesus Christ". So when you look at a calander right a check or get your pay check thank Jesus for the date. [/QUOTE] Actually we should thank someone like [Aloysius Lilius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar) or [Annianus of Alexandria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annianus_of_Alexandria). But while you’re looking at your calendar, consider this: [Days of the Week](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_the_week): In English all the days of the week are named after the ruling luminary, with most of the names coming from Anglo-Saxon gods and goddesses. Sunday and Monday are named directly from the Sun and Moon, although the Anglo-Saxon goddess Sunne is implicit in the name of the Sun itself. Saturday is the only day named directly after a Roman god, though the Germanic god associated with each day is generally a syncretic calque of the corresponding divinity from the Roman calendar. [Months](http://www.pantheon.org/miscellaneous/origin_months.html): January Named after the Roman god of beginnings and endings Janus (the month Januarius). March This is the first month of the Roman year. It is named after the Roman god of war, Mars. May The third month of the Roman calendar. The name probably comes from Maiesta, the Roman goddess of honor and reverence. June The fourth month was named in honor of Juno. However, the name might also come from iuniores (young men; juniors) as opposed to maiores (grown men; majors) for May, the two months being dedicated to young and old men. July It was the month in which Julius Caesar was born, and named Julius in his honor in 44 BCE, the year of his assassination. Also called Quintilis (fifth month). August Originally this month was called Sextilis (from sextus, “six”), but the name was later changed in honor of the first of the Roman emperors, Augustus (because several fortunate events of his life occurred during this month). ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/173 "2006-12-15T23:39:05Z")
Oops, forgot [Dionysius Exiguus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus). Sorry Dio. ---
**Author:** ![Ammonius\_Saccus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@Ammonius\_Saccus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ammonius_Saccus)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/174 "2006-12-15T23:53:19Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] And if you think that’s bad, look at the Lotto! People keep praying to that and coming up dry. Perhaps they’re stupid to do so, but are they insane to think that it is _possible_ that one day their appeal will be rewarded with magnificent reward and riches? Is belief that the lotto occasionally pays out _insane_? Infrequency of success is no guarantee that the suppositions feuling the attempt are false. [/QUOTE] Do people really pray to the lotto? I think they play the lotto and then pray to some god to help them win. They are not insane to think they have a chance to win. They do have a chance to win probably about a one in a hundred million chance of winning (I am sure of what the chances of winning different lotteries is). They would be completely justified to believe they have that chance of winning. On the other hand if they thought praying to a god increased their chances they would win they would not be justified in that belief. The same is true of other forms of prayer. A person is justified in believing the things they pray for may come true if it is possible they will. If a million pray for their family member’s cancer to go into remission some of them will get what they prayed for. But there is no evidence it had anything to do with prayer. [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msciprayer.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msciprayer.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ammonius\_Saccus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@Ammonius\_Saccus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ammonius_Saccus)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/175 "2006-12-16T00:11:17Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] With me, my car is the same (as I’m no mechanic). I presume that the reasons for the failure are knowable, but I don’t know them myself. So I appeal to a mechanic, and sometimes his efforts are immidiately successful, sometimes not. (I recall the month I went through four alternator belts.) Because he is not perfectly reliable, am I insane to think that my auto mechanic knows more about cars than I? [/QUOTE] The situation with an auto mechanic and prayer are totally different. Sure the mechanic is not perfect, but we do know that taking your car to a mechanic greatly improves the chances of the car being fixed. This is backed up tons of evidence. This is not true of prayer. We see this in the report linked above about prayer and medical issues. Except for a same placebo effect we see prayer does nothing. This is just not true of mechanics. We know that mechanics greatly improve the chances that your car will be fixed. But there is no evidence that prayer works. We see the things that people pray for happening at the rate we predict they will regardless of the prayers. Not only that, but the mechanisms of car repair are known. You may not know them, but you could study them and see they are based on evidence and rational thought. This is not true of prayer. You know there is a difference between the auto mechanic and prayer. If you don’t, the next time your car needs a new alternator belt try praying for the car work instead. See how far that gets you. The bus would be my guess. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/176 "2006-12-16T00:29:30Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Ill try to crank up the grammer a notch or two. [/QUOTE] And what are you going to do about gramps? ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/177 "2006-12-16T00:40:10Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] And what are you going to do about gramps? [/QUOTE] Ne’er mind . . . As much as I agree with many of his well-reasoned arguments, he has euthanized both “grammer” and gramps . . . (My atheist Xmas gift to **flung** : ‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’‘’'. Use them in good health!) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/178 "2006-12-16T03:55:56Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] But are these new things discoveries or interpretations? Are they really finding something truly new, or are they rewording something that already existed? Do you consider someone making something up ‘new’? A lot of the ideas in the Catholic church today havent been around the whole time, they came along later. Things like original sin. Was this concept always there, and just hadnt been disccovered, or is it just an interpretation of pre-existing things that someone just reinterpreted? Or maybe it was just made up out of whole cloth. It isnt explicitly in the bible. All those different churches and sects, do they have something new, or are they just rewording things that they already had. The Jehova’s Witnesses consider blood sacred, and wont take blood transfusions. Is this a new discovery, or is it just something they already had and reinterpreted? I dont consider reworking old things to be making new things. [/QUOTE] I see. I suppose you can keep refining your definition to make yourself right. I don’t see why a new interpretation isn’t still something new. That doesn’t mean they are all positive. It’s all part of seeking. How about the Nag Hammadi Library? Ancient books about Chjrsitianity not included in the NT discovered in 1945? Would that qualify? This discovery has had a direct effect on how people view the bible and the history of Christianity. How about the thousands of new copies of the books of the NT that have been discovered. Those have shed new light on where the bible came from and changed doctrine for many. Your original claim was that religion offers nothing new. I think there’s some pretty serious doubts about that assertion. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/179 "2006-12-16T05:00:51Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The rules would be the same (except for stuff the 10 year old would be allowed because she’s older) even if the expression were different. But I don’t think 700 years would have made that much difference, actually. The people who wrote the Tanakh, whether you think they did it by themselves or were inspired, had a high degree of moral sophistication. [/QUOTE] Perhaps. The rules might be constant but you wouldn’t explain them in the same way and certainly they would not be percieved the same. Your talking about the commandments of God not being constant but you are judging that by the varied perceptions of the children. > [@](#): > > I agree with some of your interpretation of the message. Love thy non-Hebrew neighbor does not seem a part of Joshua, for instance. And I know you think the message is only about the inner being, but the Bible is damn well concerned about the outer being. Judaism is all about living under very specific rules - I never did, but I know people who do, while Christianity was designed to appeal to people unwilling to limit themselves, by giving up shellfish or being circumsized. That’s another thing God supposedly changed his mind about, it’s true. I confess a profound ignorance about Judaism and the OT. When I read through Leviticus it seemed to me that religion was being used by the priests to try and lead the people and exert some control over them. If you see certain practices are harmful to the culture or even believe they are, then tell people God forbids it. It seems obvious that religion is not just the inner journey but interwoven with the temperament of current society, traditions and myths. It seems to me that Jesus simply elaborated and tried to clarify the rules already handed down. To not covet they neighbors wife or his ass {assuming he had a nicer ass than his wife} wasn’t just to not take them, but to even examine your heart to the point of not wanting them. In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants there’s an interesting section where Joseph Smith is asking God for clarification about the sacrament of Communion. How often is Oft? God’s reply is basically, It’s up to you. Every Sunday is okay. Once a month, Once every two months. You can work out the details. I think a lot of the details of the rules are like that. It’s mans mistake to put the letter of the law before the spirit of it. I did a little reading on the 10 commandments and found something. In Luke 10 a man asks Jesus “What must I do to have eternal life?” and Jesus asks him about the law. He replies Love God and love my neighbor as myself. Yet when I look up the ten commandments they actually don’t say that. Thoughts? In the ten commandments I found this in > [@](#): > > Duet 5:8You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. This is presented as an act by and the will of God but I think it speaks to how things work. Our lives touch the lives of others and parents pass on to their children and future generations not just genetic features but by their actions and example certain subjective traits that either need to be overcome to grow, or built upon to grow even more. It’s a slow process but we see it’s effects. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/180 "2006-12-17T00:01:40Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Perhaps. The rules might be constant but you wouldn’t explain them in the same way and certainly they would not be percieved the same. Your talking about the commandments of God not being constant but you are judging that by the varied perceptions of the children. [/quote] Well, I do agree that if the laws and the Bible are not accurate reflections of what God said, all bets are off. > [@](#): > > I confess a profound ignorance about Judaism and the OT. When I read through Leviticus it seemed to me that religion was being used by the priests to try and lead the people and exert some control over them. If you see certain practices are harmful to the culture or even believe they are, then tell people God forbids it. Well, clearly I agree that it is all made up, but I don’t agree that it was a matter of control. Many of these laws were for keeping Jewish/Hebrew identity in an increasingly diverse Middle Eastern culture. Much as we might scoff at these very detailed laws, over 2,000 years later we have people like me who are Jewish, while we don’t have Assyrians or Phoenicians running around. Descendants, yet, but no national identity. So the priestly strategy worked. But as far as god goes, if they made up the Sabbath they could have made up God just as easily, couldn’t they? We’re again left with the problem of how much of what is written is inspired. If God intended us to guess, it’s pretty much all up in the air. Saying that the Bible is either all true or not true at all seems to be the only consistent positions. This does not mean that no gods exist - just that the Bible is an unreliable pointer to god. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864.md?page=10)