And religion fails to meaningfully answer any questions at all. It is empty, a collection of meaningless, baseless assertions. Complaining that science can’t do something isn’t an endorsement of “god-belief” unless you can demonstrate that it can do what science can’t. And since “god-belief” is based completely on falsehoods it can’t do that.
It doesn’t fill any gaps, and it is an attempt to deny understanding, not reach it. Asserting a fantasy to be true doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t give you any real understanding of anything; just the illusion of it.
…And by filling in those gaps with imaginary knowledge prevents those people from coming to more rational determinations. For example, if we are truly convinced that God is driving evolution then we are no longer impelled to properly research it and come to conclusions based on evidence.
It depends on what you mean by understanding the universe. I consider that to mean how the universe works, and they why question, however interesting, doesn’t help (or hinder) our understanding. The results of science should be exactly the same whether the universe arose from a random quantum event, or was deliberately created by God, or was created as part of some grad student’s experiment.
Philosophy is a useful part of the human endeavor, but religious philosophy is not all that useful, since it limits the freedom of exploration. It is the difference between trying to come up with concepts and rules for life, versus trying to understand the rule book set down by a deity. That’s not all that interesting, and neither would be philosophy which just interprets Kant.
Now if you choose to base your philosophy and/or morals on some god or gods, the first thing you have to do is to demonstrate that these gods exist, and that brings you right back to science.
Y’know, Voyager, we’re pretty much on the same page. I have little use for religious thought, but I know that there are plenty of intelligent, educated, religious people who lead productive, fulfilling lives, and I think that it is counterproductive to label those people as delusional, ignorant, or irrational. I haven’t seen you do that (nor do I think you do it), but there are quite a few SDMB posters who do.
One way of putting down theists is by saying that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and, therefore, all theists are irrational and delusional. If the intent is to shut down communication by insulting and intimidating anyone who has religious beliefs, then that’s a good approach.
If, though, the intent is to discuss religious ideas and point out something that is better – with a view to actually making things better – then atheists should start off by showing some respect towards those who believe in God by acknowledging that there actually have been valid reasons throughout history for believing in some form of deity, and then explore and discuss specific current issues instead of summarily dismissing core theist beliefs.
It’s accurate, not “counterproductive”. Such people are a danger to themselves and others.
Oooo, the poor, poor set upon theists! They only outnumber the atheists by more than ten-to-one, however will they stand up to the big, bad unbelievers?!
That would be lying. And “core theist beliefs” are flat out wrong; dismissal is all they deserve, at best.
Thank you, and I agree that we mostly agree. And I also agree that calling theists delusional pinheads is unlikely to get us anywhere. However it is a different matter to agree with them that God belief is rational today.
No one 10,000 years ago believed in either Jesus or Jehovah. Theists and atheists can agree, I hope, that god belief back then might have been reasonable but still wrong. If theists can examine why that god belief is wrong, they may understand why we say their god belief is wrong also.
Theists who retreat to faith-based arguments are admitting that their beliefs are irrational (not that they are, which they are not). No other part of their lives get the same dismissal of reason, except possibly those who claim an SO who mistreats them really loves them.
Theists who have not retreated to the unfalsifiable universe as god theory tend to get really upset by the IPU and claims that their beliefs are not rationally based. Dawkins’ basic argument is against the special pleading that theist think is their right. It is okay to put Thor into a comic book but Jehovah is special! You’ve seen theists claim that God can’t show evidence of his existence because it will ruin our faith, right? Yet those same people are very familiar the parting of the Red Sea and the raising of Lazarus.
The space of God definitions is enormous, and it seems that every theist navigates in this space, keeping away from ones that contradict evidence he choose to accept and keeping in the areas where he either rejects adverse evidence or never heard of it. And the deists sit in the little corner protected from all possible evidence. People start somewhere in this space based on culture and parents.
People (atheists) exit the space entirely perhaps based on evidence or lack thereof. I’d argue that few people enter it based on actual, good evidence.
No, it was still unreasonable back then; somewhat less unreasonable since they knew so much less, but still unreasonable. Not only do the ancient myths often make little sense even taken on their own terms, there was always a much better alternative for explaining the world than gods; “we don’t know”. If humans were less allergic to that position I expect we’d have advanced much faster; someone who admits they don’t know something is more inclined to go try to find out the truth than is someone who has decided they already know.
If their only response to every question was “we don’t know” there wouldn’t have been any progress. The God hypothesis was just like phlogiston or the world being made of earth, air, fire and water - something to be tested. I just read a collection of writings by scientists ranging from the 16th to 18th centuries. At the beginning, all the articles pretty much stated how their work showed God’s glory. By the end, God is never mentioned, as their discoveries made the God hypothesis no longer necessary. Someone calling on God 1,000 years ago is not pitiful, anyone calling on God today is.
It struck me when reading it that theists of all stripes may disagree about what their faith leads them to, but agree that faith is a valid way of knowing. Atheists are the only ones disagreeing with this, and that is maybe why they get so mad at us.
Faith is not a way of knowing,just accepting with out knowledge. Just because some people agree on something doesn’t make it true,or knowledge. If this were so then the world would be flat and the sun would move around the earth which would be the center of the universe( as once was thought and taught)!
Yeah, it really comes down to epistemology. How do we know what we know and how is that knowledge justified?
We know that empiricism works as a mechanism for creating useful knowledge because it’s how we navigate the world on a daily basis. I *see *the coffee cup on my desk … that allows me to form a hypothesis about its existence. And when I extend my hand to grasp it I receive tactile feedback that confirms that hypothesis. And when I take a sip that hypothesis is further confirmed. And on and on in a continuous chain of evidence, hypothesis, and confirmation.
However, if an idea just pops into my head, how do I tell if it’s true or false? If it’s an idea about the real world, I can test it through observation. If I get the idea that I left the stove on, I can turn the car around to check. But how do I check an idea about something that has no real-world evidence? How do I know whether it’s true or not?
I didn’t say anything about it being the only response. But “we don’t know” is necessary before you can progress, because otherwise you won’t look for any other answers. Religion silences inquiry and enforces ignorance, it doesn’t promote progress of any kind. Under religion, either you “know” what the truth already is by faith or you are told it’s a “mystery” and beyond human comprehension.
And yes, I’m aware of the occasional attempts to “find God though his work” by studying the world, but it never lasts since the world always turn out to contradict the fantasy. The believers in question inevitably either abandon their scientific inquiries, start distorting their “findings” to fit their fantasies, or they abandon their faith. Religion and truth don’t mix.
Actually, I’m not really joking, but please humor me here as a way of getting to the nature of evidence and when it is needed.
I disagree that it is an excellent article. Do I need to provide evidence for the preceeding statement? Should you provide evidence for your claim that it is an excellent article? If you don’t have to provide evidence, then please explain why.
Also, do you think Greta Christina’s approach is effective? If yes, what evidence do you have to support that conclusion? In my opinion, she would be more effective if she toned down the diatribe but I don’t have any scientific or historical evidence to support that opinion. Just my personal experience.
In a related article, she comes close to committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy:
So, there’s no “solid” evidence, there’s no “good” evidence, but there is confirmation bias, which suggests that there is some (poor or weak) evidence in favor of God’s existence but more (good and solid) evidence against it. I agree.
But why use such strong wording as “complete and utter lack” and then water it down with qualifiers? And, does the use of absolute statements increase the persuasive power of an argument or does it weaken it by coming across like amateurish salesmanship?
I wonder what evidence is used by belligerent atheists to support their tactics, and what underlying principles motivate their attacks in an internet message board.
I have no use for religion, and I’ve discussed it with some religious friends and family. But, I don’t go out of my way to point out how irrational they are. Why is such an approach tolerated and even encouraged in GD? Does every message board post present an immediate threat to atheists and must be squashed at the earliest opportunity?
I think that you exaggerate quite a bit. In most other areas of society atheists are not encouraged to speak their minds, so one becomes used to the “Good Atheist”-the one that is taught that it is polite to respect all the religious trappings of our society, to stay silent when those in front of you speak nonsense, to not defend themselves when they are condemned. Here we are not silenced, we are not ostracized, and we are not under any obligation to silently tolerate out of “respect” that which we believe to be nonsense. Religion has an equal voice here, which to some religionists is an intolerable situation. Nobody is being shouted down here-that awful sound you hear is only the voice of people with another viewpoint.
Ah, that’s an old standard. The guy who supposedly isn’t religious, yet tirelessly defends it as plausible and when atheists dare criticize it acts as if it’s some sort of act of oppression. It’s the religious apologist equivalent of the guy who starts conversations with “Some of my best friends are black people, but-”
Please state what I exaggerated and rephrase it in non-exaggerated form.
I said nothing about being silent nor did I say that we should respect all the religious trappings of our society. I said that I have discussed religion with some of my friends and family. But, I don’t go out of my way to point out how irrational they are.
Do you have any evidence that your approach works? And, y’know, not just opinion and confirmation bias, but good “solid” evidence.
BTW, is there some prohibition in GD to asking questions? I’ve asked several questions in this thread and most of them are being ignored. Yes, some of them are rhetorical but many of them are attempts at soliciting more specific comments. Is there a better way of doing this? Should I just deny everything that I disagree with, put the posters on the defensive, and then nag the posters to defend their statements?
