(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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was God.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…?”
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No more than he did to me.
Thats absurd.