And yet, the vast majority of those never make it past page one, which is kinda my point.
And others don’t have scripturally-based religions in the first place, and thus find “these other people’s religious writings aren’t describing facts, therefore you are delusional” spectacularly unimpressive.
Religious tools are intended for processing meaning. Scientific tools are intended for processing fact. Using religious tools to get at facts is like using a hex wrench for driving nails; complaining that religious tools aren’t dealing with the realm of fact is like complaining that a hex wrench is too thin and useless to drive a nail. Some religious folks want a universe in which there are no nails and never have been so hammers are useless; the technical term for these people is “morons”. Others are sufficiently unclear on the construction of thought that they can’t figure out what tool to use in a given situation; this is ignorance that can be fought.
That ignorance cannot be fought, however, by saying that having a set of hex wrenches is delusional; it may be that one person has no need for hex wrenches, or has all their rotation-inducing tool needs provided by screwdrivers, but someone who is, in essence, arguing that hex nuts don’t exist is going to come across as a complete fruitloop.
People will ascribe meaning to things, and develop systems for manipulating said meanings. Some meanings may be more pleasant, more aesthetic, or more useful to more people than others. So be it.
In a world where some people think that providing severed plant genitalia to potential partners is an appropriate dating behaviour conveying attraction and thoughtfulness and have other people actually agree with that meaning, anything is possible. People will assign the weirdest bloody meanings to actions; this is just something that happens. It’s when actions taken on the basis of those meanings get into other people’s spaces that problems develop.
Religions are systems of meanings. In order to “debunk” it one has to either demonstrate that assigning meaning is of itself delusional (fat chance) or that there are other meanings which are in all cases superior that have been rejected irrationally. This cannot be done without knowing the purposes to which those meanings are being put and what criteria are being used for preferring those meanings.
If nothing can follow from those assumptions, because logic has no primacy, how does one proceed, or make statements at all? If peanutbutter is jam, and the next minute it’s peanutbutter again, and I can’t say which, or even define them, how do I even express anything? Seriously, I’m not trying to show my faith in logic, or that it makes thought easierm if I choose to utilize it. I’m asserting it makes thought possible, and is hence would appear to be essential. Even if it doesn’t matter what assumptions you start with, if you’ve got no logic, nothing coherent comes from them. Please, start with an assumption, and then argue a point from it in a way I can comprehend, and indicates you have an intelligence, and are not some random language generator, without logic, and perhaps I can see what you mean.
Okay, here’s my observations:
- Jerry Falwell has conversations in which he successfully communicates his meanings.
- Jerry Falwell doesn’t accept that the principles of logic trump the Bible.
- Jerry Falwell blatantly ignores logic quite often, even while he’s successfully communicating his meanings.
Therefore, my conclusion is that adherence to logic isn’t what makes thought possible. YOu gotta adhere to some system, but formal logic is one choice among many. It happens to be what I try to choose, but not everyone makes the same choice, and parodying them as saying “jam is peanutbutter” says more about your understanding of them than it says about them.
Daniel
If you don’t mind my asking, what on Earth do these statements mean? And would I need religious tools to understand? If I lack them, am I deficient, because I cannot say what anything means? Are religious tools and semantics the same, then, or, at least, two of a kind? Do religious systems have syntax built around the meanings? Are you also suggesting religions have no relevent application to fact, and that facts cannot convey meaning?
Far be it from me to speak for Lilairen, but I think Lilairen was referring to the idea of non-overlapping magistras; or simply put-religion and science serve different purposes.
Religion (and some philosophy) is meant to address the meaning of purpose and morality. What you should do with your time on earth and how you should conduct yourself.
Science is meant to address the how and the what, as in, how did we get here, what are we made up of, etc. Science can’t answer the ‘purpose’ of my life, nor can it answer to what my morals should be. Religion could (but doesn’t, I’m an atheist).
I believe that’s what Lilairen was referring to…but I could be horribly wrong…
Why? He follows logically from the belief in the Truth of the Bible, does he not? That this first principle is a fallacy does not render all illogical thenceforth; it just means he begins from an invalid argument. I don’t see how this demonstrates logic is superfluous to thought (if we are to say that “thought” must have some sort of basic coherence to be something other than complete randomness). Specific and consistent deviations from perfect logic do not imply that all logic is unnecessary, especially for thought, I should think. If anything, it demonstrates how rational people who have faith are not insane or worse, completely senseless.
have no problem admitting when I am out of my depth. This, obviously, is one of those times. And I do appreciate Lobsang pointing out, as someone who isn’t an active participant in this thread (whether he was earlier or not is irrelevant), that just going back and forth endlessly is not contributing anything. So, I’ll leave this in much more capable hands than my feeble attempts to help from a strictly layman’s view. And Contrapuntal, so you’ll know that I’m not just bailing to avoid answering your last set of questions, I’ll offer this much before I go (and save my head from exploding).
The reason I phrased it that way is so that it was beyond obvious (I had hoped) that I didn’t make any special exceptions for “religion” or those who believe in it.
ARGH! Good Og, if I’m even remotely understanding you now (which I confess, may not be the case), I thought you’d used the Mayans as an example. I didn’t realize, if this is indeed what you’re asking, that you wanted me to address it specifically. If so, whether or not I think their belief (or anyone’s in anything) is superstitious or not, it’s not my place to judge, label or be anything but respectful. Again, as I’d thought before, I really NOW can’t be anymore clearer than that.
Then you’ve missed what I’ve said. The “religious” answer, I believe, was offered by jsgoddess and IIRC, the “leprechaunism” suggestion was by LHoD. However, I know for a fact, that at least both yosemite and I have put forth the basically same responses. If you’re interested, perhaps you’d like to pursue the multiple times we’ve posted those in this thread. If not, just forget it and know that they’re out there if anyone still cares about them or that particular opinion.
Although for the most part, my questions have gone unanswered (and you have no idea how much I appreciate you at least giving it a shot), I won’t shy away from attempt to try on the ones that you ask.
Last time, whether or not I think “human sacrifice” is a “valid religious belief” is irrelevant. The people who should make a call on that are those who can enact some sort of judgment… authorities, God, anyone that actually knows the practice is going on. If I knew of someone participating in this activity, I would do everything in my power (up to and including my own death) to stop them. Or so I’d hope. Describing my feelings on the subject seems rather silly. However, since I know I have called such things “heinous,” “inhuman” or whatever, I’ll admit to error if I was instead supposed to always treat, even this, with respect. I’ll add though, if I was discussing with someone who just believed in it but never acted upon it or who had done it but given it up, I could certainly conduct myself respectfully without jeopardizing my personal feelings or those acceptable within our culture. Because I believe that they, and I, might learn something beneficial if it stays at that
If not, and that makes me a hypocrite, then I’ll gladly own up to it and apologize for such. If it doesn’t and others feel that it was a horrible analogy, then I’ll once more opt for the “agree to disagree” default position that I follow. So, if I do need to come back just to say I’m sorry, that I will do. Anything else and I’m already on record as having covered it.
I am not saying that it doesn’t. I am saying that it doesn’t for me. And that’s ALL I can say. I cannot speak for anyone else. Respect covers everything, I my HO and religion falls into that category. Period. No special exceptions. Not for the IPU, Mayans, my deist agnostic views or anything else. I respect the PEOPLE I discuss things with. There is nothing else I can say. If no one gets that really basic concept about me, then I need to take up some other language.
Um, that wasn’t a “false dichotomy” because “delusional” has been the absolute most bandied about word in this thread. Especially from those who champion the logic/science position. Now, I realize some perhaps haven’t singled that out to use and to them I apologize if it seems that I was aiming that there versus elsewhere. I was not. To you specifically, I’m sorry. I included that in a general sense to clearly state that I didn’t personally care for myself but was here arguing on the behalf of respect to EVERYONE. You, me, them, the whole lot. That’s it. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.
Now, my towel is thrown in. I don’t know which side will prevail here the most, but I definitely believe that beating a dead horse takes top honors for the day.
Good luck to the remainder of the hearty souls (on both sides) who wish to continue to duke it out (humorously speaking). Me and my simplistic idea are headed for the locker room. May peace be with y’all.
The theists are playing a very clever game by defining proof only in terms of positive proof while making a negative claim (the existence of god can’t be disproved).
But there are other means of proof besides direct positive proof (e.g., “He was in Seattle when the crime was committed in St. Louis”).
For example:
- We should reject ideas which, if accepted, require us to accept other ideas which we know aren’t true.
- We should reject ideas which, if accepted, lead to obvious absurdities.
Belief in god fails on both counts.
If I accept that the existence of god is possible, I also have to accept that the existence of the Pink Invisible Magic Panda is possible, that it’s elephants all the way down (with the caveat that our understanding of the elephants has evolved over time so that now we know they can’t be perceived except by a willing heart with the grace of the elephants themselves), and an infinite number of such absurdities.
It turns the universe into an Alice-in-Wonderland funhouse that defies knowing – yet without any of the predictive power of quantum mechanics.
The theists are also playing a clever game by refusing to define this god which they say exists.
Suppose I said that a qubarkaar exists, and then claimed you couldn’t prove it didn’t, so your denial was mere opinion, and then refused to provide any qualities for this qubarkaar which all qubarkaarists could agree upon, then pointed to some ancient and conflicting stories about it (which contained obvious errors of fact) and had people describe their own internal communication with it. Would it be wise, or even sane, to accept such nonsense? Of course not.
So my challenge to the theists, before this goes any farther:
Define this thing you say exists.
Once you’ve done that, in a way that doesn’t induce conditions 1 and 2 above, then we’ll happily go about disproving it. If you can’t agree on a definition, then god must be considered a mere idea, not a reality. Not even the possibility of a reality.
And there, my friends, is your proof. He who has elephants, let him ride!
<snarky hijack>
Y’know, we need a button that purges all snarks and hijacks from a thread.
</snarky hijack>
The theists are playing a very clever game by defining proof only in terms of positive proof while making a negative claim (the existence of god can’t be disproved).
But there are other means of proof besides direct positive proof (e.g., “He was in Seattle when the crime was committed in St. Louis”).
For example:
- We should reject ideas which, if accepted, require us to accept other ideas which we know aren’t true.
- We should reject ideas which, if accepted, lead to obvious absurdities.
Belief in god fails on both counts.
If I accept that the existence of god is possible, I also have to accept that the existence of the Pink Invisible Magic Panda is possible, that it’s elephants all the way down (with the caveat that our understanding of the elephants has evolved over time so that now we know they can’t be perceived except by a willing heart with the grace of the elephants themselves), and an infinite number of such absurdities.
It turns the universe into an Alice-in-Wonderland funhouse that defies knowing – yet without any of the predictive power of quantum mechanics.
The theists are also playing a clever game by refusing to define this god which they say exists.
Suppose I said that a qubarkaar exists, and then claimed you couldn’t prove it didn’t, so your denial was mere opinion, and then refused to provide any qualities for this qubarkaar which all qubarkaarists could agree upon, then pointed to some ancient and conflicting stories about it (which contained obvious errors of fact) and had people describe their own internal communication with it. Would it be wise, or even sane, to accept such nonsense? Of course not.
So my challenge to the theists, before this goes any farther:
Define this thing you say exists.
Once you’ve done that, in a way that doesn’t induce conditions 1 and 2 above, then we’ll happily go about disproving it. If you can’t agree on a definition, then god must be considered a mere idea, not a reality.
And there, my friends, is your proof. He who has elephants, let him ride!
<snarky hijack>
Y’know, we need a button that purges all snarks and hijacks from a thread.
</snarky hijack>
Sorry about the double post. I thought I aborted the first in time.
Please refer to the second of the seemingly twin posts. The first contains an obvious mistake.
To lend some possible to weight to my argument that false premises do not render all that follows illogical, since the assumption appears to be that anything I say is wrong, followed by gainsaying using bad examples, I quote a math professor:
I suppose there are folks out there who operate with impaired logic on a regular basis, but I’d be willing to bet those people could be said to operate with impaired thought, as in, they are not sane. If you want to say insanity is just as valid as sanity, I will concede the utter futility of my argument. There’s no reasoning with the insane, after all.
Short answer: Meatros has me correct.
Meaning is something that is created by human brains, human minds; it is, occasionally, associated with facts, but it is not of itself factual. (Fact: Person A hands Person B a handful of cut flowers while standing on B’s steps. Meaning: encoded. Sometimes very loosely: “Oh, that’s a nice gesture. How sweet and romantic.” Sometimes in great detail: “Nice gesture. Okay, these roses are yellow, which has the meaning of friendship, so this gesture is not romantic.” If I’m remembering that right, at least; that’s not from my culture. Sometimes anamolously-according-to-culture: “Great. I’m being treated as a generic person who’s supposed to be thrilled at being handed severed plant genitalia.”)
Someone dreams, repeatedly, of a black-veiled woman with a sword, standing in the wind and with a rainbow behind her. (Reported fact.) What does this mean? No meaning exists until one picks a toolset and applies it, a process requiring human discretion; someone who picks “Jungian imagery” will find or create different meanings than someone who grabs “devotion to the orisa”. Some people may like to have multiple toolsets (or portions thereof) available to them, so that they can select whichever seems most appropriate or effective to their needs and the current situation; this is my own personal preference. (I have yet to see a good argument against this flexibility.)
Mythology is a process of worldview creation and expression – the stories not only encapsulate those worldviews, but code them so the meaning can be transferred and shared. (Meaning isn’t something that can be transferred without encoding, in my experience; the visible stuff – the facts – has to carry the same subjective material to all relevant parties. The phrase “If you loved me you’d” is rooted in meaning-encoding protocols.) It’s not purely a religious thing – there’s a reason I suggested earlier that folks try looking at dating threads currently in the Pit through the toolset of analysis of conflicting relationship-protocol mythology.
I would not presume that you are deficient if you do not find any of these toolsets useful or appealing; I would presume that you either do not have a need for toolsets addressing those concerns or have other tools that you find serve the function for you better. Perhaps you don’t have dreams of veiled women with swords; perhaps you see no need to ascribe meaning to them when you do.
I would call the study of the syntax of meaning systems in religion “theology”.
And those who argue for them out of well-meaning, but misguided politesse, it seems. Moreover, I think this chilling fact speaks to the relatively caustic nature of this “epistemic relativism” to rational thought, by saying all experience is valid, and then claiming experience of external evidence provides no more intrinsically useful way of knowing than any other. What’s worse is that while those who rely on external evidence as their basis of logical thought can show that evidence to others as a potent and utterly honest means of corroberation, this is not, and can not be true of any other kind of experience. The relativist argues the validity of faith by claiming we must have faith in their “internal evidence”, their “other ways of knowing”, yet provide us absolutely no means of judging why we should. Rather, they say we are impertinent or asking. Faith requires faith, then (be it in internal experience, or any other unverifiable notion they decide on their own is real). To avoid being impolitic, they must further deny the necessary function of logic, ironically attemting to use logic to argue the point, as if meaningful expression of any kind did not demand it. It strains credibility.
I have already agreed that calling religious people “delusional” is counterproductive and that I have no urge to do so.
gum and I are good, so I’ll leave our “agree to disagree” view where it is. Thank you gum.
Yes, we agree here already. I doubt there is anything anyone could say that will change the minds of the true-believers.
Well yes, you’re right. They clearly do not. My question is: Why not? Do we have any mental-health wizards in the audience?
My opinion to this, and I stress opinion, is that you are stating your opinion here. Now, you probably don’t agree with my opinion. That is your right. But that is my answer.
No, it hasn’t been answered. Religion is rarely criticised and God forbid soemeone should start trying to class it as a mental illness. Now why is that?
This is obviously wrong. While everyone has a right to their opinion, they are certainly not all of equal value. Next time you are ill, you could get an opinion from QtM on your illness or you could get one from me. Given that I’m an IT guy, which opinion would have the greater weight with you?
I am not making a case for simply slamming all the faithful here. Somehow I have failed to make myself clear to you. I agree, and have agreed once or twice before in this thread, that calling believers “deluded” is rude and counterproductive. Now, could we drop the idea that Testy is going to suddenly start shouting “deluded fool!” at all the believers?
My question, as simply as I can put it is: Why isn’t religion classed as a delusion like any other delusion?
Thank you.
Testy
Testy, you just knew I’d come back in here for a polite question, didn’t you? 
However, I’m beyond thrilled to see that I can now, at least in my own little world that I live in, can add you to the list of people who are understanding me somewhat. To that I say…
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now for that question.
I’ll do my best to give you my opinion. I have no idea. Not why some do or some don’t. As I’ve said, I do not out of respect. The same way I wouldn’t disrespect anyone’s belief in anything else. IE: Your example about medical advice given from QtM or you, the IT guy. Regardless of who’s suggestion I would follow, I would still listen patiently and respectfully. Kind of like here, how I’ve tried to, consistently I hope (if not, someone please call me on it, point it out and then I’ll issue an apology), be respectful no matter what, even if I’ve felt like throwing my monitor, myself and the cat out the window.
But again, I can only speak for me. And just like, I’m assuming, you wouldn’t hazard a guess as to what a physician would do in any given situation, then I can’t possibly guess why religion hasn’t been classified one way or another by those powers that be. Like I said earlier, perhaps it’s because they don’t. I also reiterate, that I doubt it’s because they dislike the common weight carried by the word “delusional,” nor do I think they care that some find religion to be a “sacred cow.” I’m assuming they go with research, observation, whatever their logic is, facts available to them, study, peer review, trial and error and maybe context. (If an example is needed here from me, let me know and I’ll try my best.) Plus, there’s probably a whole other host of things that I don’t have a clue about, not being a specialist of this sort and all, and other things specific to each hypothesis. Or is it theory?
Anyway, that’s the best I’ve got. Hope that helps explain my position. And once, thank you for being so polite and respectful. 
Seems this idea that the usefulness of logic must be taken on faith has been a prevalent one, though it seems the philosophers hoist themselves on their own petard in the effort to argue it.
A voice of dissention (or an appeal to sanity, if you prefer).
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” -Voltaire
Not to say that all religious people are fools, by any means…
But once you throw reason and logic out the window, you’re left only with blind faith. And, for many religious folks, to admit that their belief in a God has just as much foundation as someone else’s belief in a different God, or in Elves, or Pixies… well…
There’s also the fact that many theists get increasingly worked up the more you press them for justification for their view. And if you point out that it’s as delusional as a belief in the Greek Gods or what have you… Well, we’ve seen what happens via this very thread.
Hehehehe. Yes, I’m trying to convert you to the dark side.
I may have mis-coded the nested quotes in that last reply. What I was getting at with the comparison of my opinion vs. QtM’s opinion is that not all opinions are created equal. You being a nice person, I suspect you would indeed listen carefully to whatever medical bullshit I might spout and then, having common sense, go ahead and do whatever QtM told you. You would have made a value judgement on the relative worth of our opinions.
This sounds like something a mental-health professional should be pinned down and forced to answer. My own belief is that religious belief should be classed with other beliefs in invisible, intangible beings. I’m not sure if this has been studied or considered. I have certainly never heard of anyone doing so. Please note how I cleverly avoided that loaded term we’ve been discussing!
You are very welcome to the polite and respectful. I find it helps with getting answers. Actually, I think this question could be better addressed in GD than in the Pit. Is that considered a valid threat? “OK buddy, if you don’t stop it I’m going to have to take it to GD!”
Best regards
Testy
Yes, but that is what the Pit, and probably GD, are for. There is no place to hide, obfuscations are identified, and one has the choice of either defending their arguments or conceding.
Regards
Testy