Dear atheist equivalent of the Chuckle BrothersIsn't that the responsibility of those who employ them in the context of their worldview?
Define your terms.
Dear atheist equivalent of the Chuckle BrothersDear theist equivalent of Mr Magoo.
Define your terms.
Isn't that the responsibility of those who employ them in the context of their worldview?The term Blind faith is mostly ejecta from the the rectal passage of new atheism, so be my guest.
The term Blind faith is mostly ejecta from the the rectal passage of new atheism, so be my guest.
[citation needed]Shouldn't that be shite-ation?
Dear atheist equivalent of the Chuckle Brothers
Define your terms.
Vlad,OK Faith is personal trust in an encountered personal God..... Blind faith is a term I've only heard atheists use in the place of faith. The closest I can get to what I imagine an atheist means by it is ''a mere guess.''
To me, to you...
They're not my terms. Occasionally Christians here tell me that I fail to distinguish between the two versions of their term "faith". I ask merely what that difference might be according to whatever definitions those Chrsitans think they mean.
Isn't it more to do with whether the person with faith has a full understanding of what they have faith in?But which theist would ever claim to have full understanding of the god they believe in?
OK Faith is personal trust in an encountered personal God..... Blind faith is a term I've only heard atheists use in the place of faith. The closest I can get to what I imagine an atheist means by it is ''a mere guess.''
Isn't it more to do with whether the person with faith has a full understanding of what they have faith in?
Vlad,Not sure what you are after here Hillside but at first glance you seem to demanding that love or trust of a personal God encountered be turned into some kind of intellectual belief in an abstract idea.
Actually it was Sword of the wotsit who last used "blind faith" (I think he'd call himself a Christian?), but anyways - how then would you establish a logical path from "personal trust" in something to it being more than a guess - ie, not "blind"?
Not sure what you are after here Hillside but at first glance you seem to demanding that love or trust of a personal God encountered be turned into some kind of intellectual belief in an abstract idea.
I think you mean for believers to conform to the new atheist homunculus.........a neural network for storing neutral facts for the acquisition of material in various combinations.
Vlad,I don't think anybody is asking anybody else to trust in God on the strength of their own faith Hillside. That is a distortion of evangelical Christianity.
Not at all. I'm just trying to get to why - for those who would assert his god also to be my god if only I knew it - I should have as much confidence in his "personal trust" as he has.
For me 'faith' in the religious sense is a synonym for the holding of unjustified beliefs in supernatural agents: in that when those claiming 'faith' are asked to support these beliefs independently of their personal convictions their attempts at justification fail due to the absence of relevant methods of investigation and/or reliance on fallacious reasoning.In a way I think you've been wise to just snipe at contributions rather than add anything more than the above to debate.
In a way I think you've been wise to just snipe at contributions rather than add anything more than the above to debate.
I have here then to give Hillside his due at actually having the guts to put something coherent forward for perusal even if it is ''The philosophy that dare not speak it's name.''
In what way is my describing religious 'faith' as unjustified beliefs incoherent?It's a slogan which as yet has not been justified.
It's a slogan which as yet has not been justified.
If I haven't asked for it before can I ask you now to justify that assertion. If you are able to produce half of what Hillside manages i'm sure that would go some way.
Isn't it more to do with whether the person with faith has a full understanding of what they have faith in?
Don't be silly: as I explained in my earlier post the absence of methods suited to investigating religious faith-based claims, and/or the dependence on fallacies, justifies my noting that religious faith involves beliefs that are unjustified. All you need do now is produce a methodology for investigating the supernatural without straying into fallacies so as to justify your faith-based beliefs - and we'll all be falling at your feet.No my position is that there are no knock down arguments on either side, science has nothing to say in support or against atheism or agnosticism, and you guys, when it comes down to it are just absence of physical evidence is evidence of absence.
On you go!
I don't think anybody is asking anybody else to trust in God on the strength of their own faith Hillside. That is a distortion of evangelical Christianity.
In other words....it's down to you and God at the end of the day.
Wot's wrong with blind faith, then?
It's a slogan which as yet has not been justified.
If I haven't asked for it before can I ask you now to justify that assertion. If you are able to produce half of what Hillside manages i'm sure that would go some way.
No my position is that there are no knock down arguments on either side, science has nothing to say in support or against atheism or agnosticism, and you guys, when it comes down to it are just absence of physical evidence is evidence of absence.
Now can you or can you not justify your assertion that faith is unjustified belief?
I think the trouble is that you don't want to put up anything that constitutes any justification for your beliefs about faith for fear of the Emmental nature of them.
I recall here one or two who a few years ago cheerfully and unashamedly announcing loud and proud their physicalism and naturalism but nobody is keen to now because they were treated to some refutations...................
Does that explain your reluctance to make justification?
Vlad,Now you know as a good little physicalist you don't mean that.
Of course it's justified - the moment in fact someone says, "actually I have no method to distinguish my faith from blind faith" as you just implied, albeit unwittingly.
No my position is that there are no knock down arguments on either side, science has nothing to say in support or against atheism or agnosticism, and you guys, when it comes down to it are just absence of physical evidence is evidence of absence.
Now can you or can you not justify your assertion that faith is unjustified belief?
I think the trouble is that you don't want to put up anything that constitutes any justification for your beliefs about faith for fear of the Emmental nature of them.
I recall here one or two who a few years ago cheerfully and unashamedly announcing loud and proud their physicalism and naturalism but nobody is keen to now because they were treated to some refutations...................
Does that explain your reluctance to make justification?
Now you know as a good little physicalist you don't mean that.
With advances in neurology and brain scans we will be able to tell the difference.
Even in the realm of the abstract my definition discriminates the two. Are you having trouble with definitions
If Scientism is a scoundrel's pursuit what is ''scientism packed away when it doesn't fit your argument''?
Vlad,You are forgetting the expectation of justification comes from naturalists or naturalistic arguments whatever guff you come out with about metaphysical naturalism (How you can claim you are arguing against metaphysical arguments by not using metaphysical arguments means you are either mistaken or mistaking science for an argument against religion.)
That’s a non sequitur. There can be “knock down arguments” without invoking something science makes no claims to in any case. The knock down arguments are in fact the codified logic that some who would argue for “God” attempt but get wrong. That there may be other arguments for gods that no-one has thought of yet and that would be cogent is unknowable.
Already done. It’s unjustified when it’s, well, it's un-justified. That is, when those who assert "God" offer no justification for the claim that withstands scrutiny.
Wrong again – see above.
Presumably you’re thinking here of metaphysical naturalism – something I’ve never seen anyone propound, and that fails in any case because its conclusion isn’t certainty apt. That you’ve used it relentlessly for straw man purposes doesn’t change that.
Vlad,I think there will be neurological instruments to demonstrate any difference between faith and just guessing, yes. And Goddodging too.
You think there will be instruments that can tell the difference between faith and blind faith?
No disrespect to you or your coment intended Maeght, or to any of the other non-religious/realist, contributers to this thread but, does it really matter whatever the difference is between these two?
ippy
You are forgetting the expectation of justification comes from naturalists or naturalistic arguments whatever guff you come out with about metaphysical naturalism…
(How you can claim you are arguing against metaphysical arguments by not using metaphysical arguments means you are either mistaken or mistaking science for an argument against religion.)
Therefore it is not surprising you don't accept justifications made....
…even though naturalism cannot be justified by it's own criteria of justification.
And here, on Religionethics this disingenuity is all done with a straight face!!!
And the fact that the intelligent non pisstaking atheist as well as almost everyone else has left means that you are all engaged in some kind of chain of mutual support for the unsupportable.
Can we move on now.
I think there will be neurological instruments to demonstrate any difference between faith and just guessing, yes. And Goddodging too.
I think there will be neurological instruments to demonstrate any difference between faith and just guessing, yes. And Goddodging too.Isn't that what's known as promissory scientism, Vlad? ;)
Isn't that what's known as promissory scientism, Vlad? ;)Errrrrr.......a bit.
Errrrrr.......a bit.Well that's strange - you're the first to criticise that (or what you perceive to be that) in others.
Well that's strange - you're the first to criticise that (or what you perceive to be that) in others.A brain scanner detects activity in the brain we can assume that the definition will go up and areas of the scan will light up in response to each activity.
Deploying it yourself would be the rankest of hypocrisy. It can't be that - I must be wrong.
A brain scanner detects activity in the brain we can assume that the definition will go up and areas of the scan will light up in response to each activity.Not unless the object or content of the belief-or-guess was amenable to empirical investigation and so able to be confirmed as a true belief or disconfirmed as just another ex recto guess.
Hillside's conception of the brain dictates that each thought is in fact merely the activation of areas of the brain.
Therefore barring some global catastrophy we could tell the difference between having faith and guessing.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the technology is already available. There is no novel methodology here merely making accurate detection apparatus.Does the technology exist yet? Fairly sure that if it did we'd know about it, wouldn't we? Therefore promissory scientism, to which you agreed in #37 though clearly you're trying to wriggle out of it now.
I fail to see therefore that this is promissory science
Not unless the object or content of the belief-or-guess was amenable to empirical investigation and so able to be confirmed as a true belief or disconfirmed as just another ex recto guess.I think the truth of faith or otherwise isn't particularly relevant to the question "is faith just guessing?"
That's religious beliefs out as there's no methodology for so doing, as I think we've fairly conclusively demonstrated by now.Does the technology exist yet? Fairly sure that if it did we'd know about it, wouldn't we? Therefore promissory scientism, to which you agreed in #37 though clearly you're trying to wriggle out of it now.
I think the truth of faith or otherwise isn't particularly relevant to the question "is faith just guessing?"What's your suggested alternative?
Presumably when someone is just guessing a particular part of the brain is demonstrably operating.How?
And the beauty is of course we can test any belief.
What's your suggested alternative?How?
What's your suggested alternative?How?I'm not sure what you are getting at.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.... which was precisely my reaction to your random word generated post.
... which was precisely my reaction to your random word generated post.It was a straight forward proposal that faith would be distinguishable or otherwise from guessing by use of brain scan.
I have heard of research which reveals that at the word "God" religious subjects brains operated in a different way to non religious brains.
In the non religious the visualisation centres became active suggesting the non religious were effectively trying out different versions of the God idea but all visual where as a different part of the brain was operational in religious subjects.
In other words it sounds to me like the atheist response is more like guessing.
In other words any or claims of no position of God are detectable by brain scan.
It was a straight forward proposal that faith would be distinguishable or otherwise from guessing by use of brain scan.You seem to have stitched two contradictory sentences together here.
The question of truth would be irrelevant.
Let me put it another way.For some reason your posts are even more incoherent and disjointed than usual this morning and I have no idea what on earth you think you're trying to say. The best I can make out is that the point I made in the first paragraph of #40 still stands.
Brain scans would settle your problem of not being able to distinguish faith claims from guessing.
Let me put it another way.
Brain scans would settle your problem of not being able to distinguish faith claims from guessing.
If they are the same the same parts of the brain would be shown to be working.
Similarly we could answer the question is metaphysical naturalism merely guessing or is atheism merely guessing?
How do the researchers you mention 'put it'?I can see this brain scan business might make a New Atheist a bit twitchy after all favourite throwaways such as faith is the same as guessing and religion is brain aberration are brought into the cold light of science.
Is that what brain scans show? What to the experts in interpreting brain scans say?
That may be so, provided the evidence supports you, but does that actually mean what you say it does?
Have you been head-hunted by 'Brain Scanners 'R' Us' yet?
I can see this brain scan business might make a New Atheist a bit twitchy after all favourite throwaways such as faith is the same as guessing and religion is brain aberration are brought into the cold light of science.
Here is the reference i'm using...You are free to view the original Gordon,i'm not running any errands for you and look upon it as a test of your steel.
I think the area is called Neurotheology but that might be bad science since neuroscience has traditionally been moved forward by study of the abberant and abnormal. The statistical abnormality here being atheism.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/01/religious_brains_function_diff.html
Vlad,Irrelevent to the question of whether somebody is guessing or not.
You're still confused. I suppose conceivably a machine might one day be able to distinguish a sincere belief from an insincere one, but that would tell you nothing about whether the subject is sincerely wrong. Person A might believe in the speed of light in a vacuum and Person B might believe there to be fairies at the end of his garden with equal sincerity - ie, whether someone is guessing or knows he's guessing are different matters.
Irrelevent to the question of whether somebody is guessing or not.
Your thesis is that faith is just guessing.
Brain scans would demonstrate whether that is true or not.
If he is guessing then it is irrelevant whether he knows or not and if he is not guessing then he cannot know he is guessing.
Deeply held Hillside assertion capable of scientific investigation. What would you do if it renders your theory incorrect?
Irrelevent to the question of whether somebody is guessing or not.
Your thesis is that faith is just guessing.
Brain scans would demonstrate whether that is true or not.
If he is guessing then it is irrelevant whether he knows or not and if he is not guessing then he cannot know he is guessing.
Deeply held Hillside assertion capable of scientific investigation.
What would you do if it renders your theory incorrect?
I can see this brain scan business might make a New Atheist a bit twitchy after all favourite throwaways such as faith is the same as guessing and religion is brain aberration are brought into the cold light of science.
I think the area is called Neurotheology but that might be bad science since neuroscience has traditionally been moved forward by study of the abberant and abnormal. The statistical abnormality here being atheism.
Vlad,OK Hillside what you are doing is admitting you cannot tell the difference between guessing there is a god and having a faith in God.
Of course it’s not – it’s central to it.
No it isn’t. My “thesis” (actually it was a question, but ok…) is that those who posit their personal faith beliefs as a reliable guide to truths for other people have no means of distinguishing those beliefs from just guessing. That is, “faith” is epistemically worthless.
Did you mean to say that? Surely at most they’d be able to identify only what the subject thinks is true. Whether it actually is true would involve investigating the claim itself, not what someone thinks about it.
You might want to unscramble that into a comprehensible thought.
Wrong again – see above.
If something renders “my theory” incorrect then I change my mind.
So?
Brain scans, eh? It's hard to keep up with Vlad's theological odyssey. What a whirlwind of ideas and formulations we are privileged to see.
I'm fairly sure the idea of us being 'hard-wired' to be religious is a reasonably well-explored concept - there probably are some atheists (I don't know if they'd qualify as 'New' or not, I'm still not really that au fait with what the new version of 'I don't believe in gods' might be) who get twitchy at this, but then there are probably some believers who get twitchy at the idea that their belief is not an act of will but an inevitable consequence of their particular brain structure.How would conversion fit into your suggestion that the brain is a fixed thing?
How would conversion fit into your suggestion that the brain is a fixed thing?
Brain scans, eh? It's hard to keep up with Vlad's theological odyssey. What a whirlwind of ideas and formulations we are privileged to see.Wigginhall and Outrider are here. I'm glad Hillside has people to help him out of difficulties......The Fox, Davies and Johnson of antitheism.
OK Hillside what you are doing is admitting you cannot tell the difference between guessing there is a god and having a faith in God.
That would all be settled with a brain scan one way or another since when one guesses a certain part of the brain is in operation.
I don't think it can be made simpler for you.
Therefore your assertion about not being able to tell between a faith position and a guess is rendered obsolete by science whether faith is or isn't a guess.
On past experience you will not allow yourself to be publicly wrong and that will detract from interesting and pertinent thought concerning Neuroscience, religion and atheism.
Who said it was 'a fixed thing'? Hard-wired? Perhaps I should have said 'hard-wired with a tendency towards religion' - my poor phrasing.Inevitable consequences of brain structure suggests 'fixation'.
O.
Vlad,Hillside
“Admitting” is a loaded term, but essentially yes – which is why I asked whether someone who thinks they are different could explain what it is.
No it wouldn’t. If someone is convinced that his faith belief is necessarily a fact for everyone then – so far as he’s concerned – he isn’t guessing at all. What then would this “brain scan” look for?
Or wronger – see above.
Wrong again – see above.
The irony of that will be lost on you, but I’d be quite wiling to be shown to be wrong if anyone could make a cogent argument to that effect. Do you have one?
OK Hillside what you are doing is admitting you cannot tell the difference between guessing there is a god and having a faith in God.
That would all be settled with a brain scan one way or another since when one guesses a certain part of the brain is in operation.
I don't think it can be made simpler for you.
Therefore your assertion about not being able to tell between a faith position and a guess is rendered obsolete by science whether faith is or isn't a guess.
On past experience you will not allow yourself to be publicly wrong and that will detract from interesting and pertinent thought concerning Neuroscience, religion and atheism.
Inevitable consequences of brain structure suggests 'fixation'.
What about conversion? After all many antitheists here and atheists claim to have once had faith.
Mutation. Does it work as fast as you are suggesting? I thought that's why memes were invented.
Wigginhall and Outrider are here. I'm glad Hillside has people to help him out of difficulties......The Fox, Davies and Johnson of antitheism.
The study I referred to earlier suggests that, thanks to brain scans there are different responses betwixt atheist brains and religious Brains at the mention of God.
A religious brain will become active in the fear control centres of the brain and we can link those findings to previous studies showing the religious have less active anxiety centres.
An atheist brain becomes active in the visualisation areas of the brain.
The scientists involved in the study think that the atheist brain is occupied in trying to come up with a visual representation of God.
Out of the two the atheist brain is doing IMHO activity more akin to guessing than the religious brain which does not bother with an attempt at visualisation of God because, as we keep telling you guys...........God is not an old man with a white beard.
Oh, really, that's just snide!Yes and we've got an Ippy, that just leaves George and Bungle.........come on chaps i'm feeding you the lines here.
I rather think we're the 'Rod, Jane and Freddie' of antitheism, much like Rod, Jane and Freddie were the Rod, Jane and Freddie of Question Time.
O.
Vlad,Are there enough Leprechaunists in the world to do such a survey?
As presumably there would be “betwixt” leprechaunist and a-leprechaunist brains at the mention of leprechauns. Relevance?
Are there enough Leprechaunists in the world to do such a survey?
Everybody's visual centre would be active with a mention of Leprechauns because Leprechaunists and a-leprechaunists know they are tiny Irish Chaps with Ginger hair and beards etc.
Atheist brains studied demonstrate a difficulty in conceptualising God IMHO. Could that be the scleroticising effect of atheism?
I don't know.
Atheist brains studied demonstrate a difficulty in conceptualising God IMHO. Could that be the scleroticising effect of atheism?
Vlad,Show me anywhere on this board where a theist said “I know that my god is your god too because that’s my faith”.
Utterly irrelevant.
And presumably those who believe in various gods can visualise them too, at least to some degree. As it has no relevance to the question though, it doesn’t matter much either way.
I do: no.
As you keep ducking and diving, here it is again: when a theist says, “I know that my god is your god too because that’s my faith” can you think of any reason at all to treat his claim as anything other than a guess – ie, to consider his faith to be “blind” for epistemic purposes?
Arguably it's a cause, rather than a result.Show me a real leprechaunist! or quote one......
As to whether everyone would fall for that caricature of Leprechauns, that's only the laughably simplistic breakfast-cereal box depiction - that's not the Leprechauns that real Leprechaunists believe in any more than God is an old white guy with a beard on a cloud with a lightning bolt (presumably because of copyright infringements against Zeus?).
O.
Show me anywhere on this board where a theist said “I know that my god is your god too because that’s my faith”.
Show me a real leprechaunist! or quote one......
In any case genuine belief should be distinguishable from Bullshitting by............................yes......................You've guessed it.........................
A brain scan.
(cue armies of river dancing Leprechauns)
Yes and we've got an Ippy, that just leaves George and Bungle.........come on chaps i'm feeding you the lines here.
Show me a real leprechaunist! or quote one......
In any case genuine belief should be distinguishable from Bullshitting by............................yes......................You've guessed it......................... A brain scan.
So the Leprechaunist analogy is invalid because you don't think there are any. Does that mean that the comparison with adherents of Norse mythology is invalid because there are none (or at least, presumably, vanishingly few) any more? How about if we make the comparison with Shintoists and their nature spirits, then? How come the number of actual adherents makes a difference, when the qualitative differences in the argument are solely about the spelling of the imaginary target?I don't know if this helps but folks have pondered a version of a Leprechaun which was identical to what a Christian would describe as God.
I don't know but i'm sure we can find out.
And the brain scans of Christians and Muslims and Hindus and Shintoists and Voudon and Pagans and so on .... do they differ?
I don't know if this helps but folks have pondered a version of a Leprechaun which was identical to what a Christian would describe as God.
But then and here is the rub..........Leprechauns are multiple.
I don't know but i'm sure we can find out.
It does help - it leads me to ask you how you'd distinguish between a Leprechaun and a god?Well a leprechaun is a tiny irish chap..........etc. How do you distinguish between God and a packet of sausages or The Gods and a pack of sausages,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit (and, arguably, Satan) and the gods of whom Yahweh is jealous. Vishnu, Shiva et al. Ameratsu Omikami and her associates. Odin, Freya, Balder and the Asgard crew. Zeus and his brood. Multiplicity doesn't appear to have got in the way of any of the others, why would it inhibit Leprechauns.
O.
Just a thought Vlad how come you never get a catholic having a vision of Mohamed, or a Muslim having a vision of the virgin Mary?I don't know if it's absolutely impossible. Do Moslems have visions of Mohammed?
ippy
Well a leprechaun is a tiny irish chap..........etc.
How do you distinguish between God and a packet of sausages or The Gods and a pack of sausages, I should imagine it's easy with a monotheistic God since I only had one sausage the other day.
A pantheon and a pack of sausages....that is a knottier problem since there are many gods and many sausages so what actually IS the difference?
It does help - it leads me to ask you how you'd distinguish between a Leprechaun and a god?A pantheon is not the same as a monotheon though is it.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit (and, arguably, Satan) and the gods of whom Yahweh is jealous. Vishnu, Shiva et al. Ameratsu Omikami and her associates. Odin, Freya, Balder and the Asgard crew. Zeus and his brood. Multiplicity doesn't appear to have got in the way of any of the others, why would it inhibit Leprechauns.
O.
To the same extent that 'god' is a guy on a cloud with a lighting bolt...Again we have to look at how God's are being believed.
I think it's because I can a) track the sausage from pig to plate, should I so desire and b) I can measure a number of characteristics of the sausage. I can't do this for claims of gods.
And where is this much vaunted 'monotheism'?
O.
A pantheon is not the same as a monotheon though is it.
In practice there was a world of difference between the greek pantheon and Plato's the one, or Aristotle's prime mover.
The greek gods were lads and Lasses on a spree...not unlike leprechaun's I guess.
Keith Ward's God A guide for the perplexed is great on comparative religion and far more respectful of the gods and belief in them then I can muster.
Again we have to look at how God's are being believed.
In my book therefore tales of carousing and shagging on mount Olympus are about as religiously edifying as tales of carousing and shagging at a New Atheist convention i.e. not very.
Claiming not to be able to compare the claims of the various Gods is pretentious nonsense.
You can equate God with being an old man with a white beard if you wish, In fact going back to the brain scan comparisons between the religious and atheists it seems you may be bound to.
Well a leprechaun is a tiny irish chap.........
Why would anyone, anyone at all, equate God as an old man with a white beard?
You can equate God with being an old man with a white beard if you wish,
Not at all. But if they are like that and that is all they do then they are nearer to just being us than Plato's the one who can in no ways be approached intellectually in the same way as say, the bloke two doors down.
So they're not valid as depictions of gods because you don't like them?
O.
Vlad,But that's not where the description of either ends is it Hillside?
Oh dear. You’re still struggling with the idea of an analogy then.
“Leprechaun” is a faith belief in the supernatural that sometimes has various physical characteristics ascribed to it.
“God” is a faith belief in the supernatural that sometimes has various physical characteristics ascribed to it.
Not at all. But if they are like that and that is all they do then they are nearer to just being us than Plato's the one who can in no ways be approached intellectually in the same way as say, the bloke two doors down.
One has to ask in what way are they divine?
Also if the shagging and carousing is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor of?
But that's not where the description of either ends is it Hillside?
But what you can do is take the EasyJet to Athens airport take the bus to mount Olympus and climb up it.
I can compare them all day long. What I can't do is validate any of them.
But what you can do is take the EasyJet to Athens airport take the bus to mount Olympus and climb up it.
Similarly take Ryanair to Dublin.......................................................
Vlad,Look either you are right and the universe is God free then that is true for everybody. If I am right then God is true for everyone. As it is you are not a proper atheist since the possibility of a God is still acknowledged by you. I use the word possibility because you do have a tendency to guff on about probabilities but never manage to produce your working out.
For this purpose, the descriptions are the "ends". And the question (yet again) was about why one person’s faith belief has any epistemic value for anyone else. If your answer is, "it hasn't" then why not just say so?
Like I can go to Mount Ararat and look for the resting place of Noah's Ark, or go to Egypt and find the archaeological evidence for the Exodus? The 'spiritual' home of the Greek gods was Mount Olympus, but you don't get in just by climbing, you also have to be worthy, otherwise you just get to the top of the hill.
Ryanair to Dublin would probably leave me closer to Mount Olympus than EasyJet to Athens would... :)
O.
[/quote
Had to laugh at your last comment....tried not to but failed.
Noah's ark is not God, Exodus is not God.
As it is you are not a proper atheist since the possibility of a God is still acknowledged by you.
Look either you are right and the universe is God free then that is true for everybody.
If I am right then God is true for everyone.
As it is you are not a proper atheist since the possibility of a God is still acknowledged by you.
I use the word possibility because you do have a tendency to guff on about probabilities but never manage to produce your working out.
And that is as far as we can go in our conversation.
No theist as far as you have been able to show has said on these boards '' God is true for you because that's my faith ''
But what you can do is take the EasyJet to Athens airport take the bus to mount Olympus and climb up it.......and then what?
No theist as far as you have been able to show has said on these boards '' God is true for you because that's my faith ''
There has been some arguments about faith being true.
So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.
So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.
Does this come close?Not sure It depends on context for instance is Sassy responding to someone who has declared God unprovable therefore belief in God is unacceptable and Sassy is refuting that sentiment then that would be a no.
Vlad,Can I just check here that you would think morality is epistemically worthless?
Fun as it is watching you being more slippery than a buttered boa on a black run, it'd save time all round if you just gave a simple yes/no answer.
Do you think religious faith is epistemically worthless?
Answer A: Yes.
Answer B: No.
Can I just check here that you would think morality is epistemically worthless?Is there any reason for linking religion with morality, given that the latter can (and as far as many of us are concerned actually does) exist without the former?
Vlad,NURSE.....He's projecting again!!!!
Fun as it is watching you being more slippery than a buttered boa on a black run, it'd save time all round if you just gave a simple yes/no answer.
Can I just check here that you would think morality is epistemically worthless?
NURSE.....He's projecting again!!!!
NS,
By all means - no, I don't think it is. What has that to do though with the claims of fact of the religious - eg, "God is"?
I wanted to understand what you meant by epistemically worthless. I have no understanding why you think morality isn't different from guessing.
So the Leprechaunist analogy is invalid because you don't think there are any. Does that mean that the comparison with adherents of Norse mythology is invalid because there are none (or at least, presumably, vanishingly few) any more?
O.
NS,YOU: need to define what you mean by "fact"
The difference is in the status of the claims. A moral philosopher will not (by and large) say something like, "this moral position is factually correct" whereas the theist will say, "God is a fact". The ones who do claim moral certainty by the way are the religious - Vlad for example seems to think that there are moral absolutes somehow floating around "out there" that he can tap into, though how that would work in practice is anyone's guess.
YOU: need to define what you mean by "fact"
WE: need to make a judgment on whether Theists are claiming it as that type of fact.
Vlad,Evasion noted.
Me: No I don't - there are plenty of good dictionaries that will do it for you.
Who the hell are "WE"?
So anyway, as it seems to have escaped your attention (again): Was that Answer A or Answer B?
YOU: need to define what you mean by "fact"
WE: need to make a judgment on whether Theists are claiming it as that type of fact.
Type of fact? Are there different types?
If you think there is only one type of fact then it should be a short job to define it. Nobody seems to want to.
This immediately leads US into the suspicion that the definition is materialist based and since materialism cannot be demonstrated a materialist doesn't want to define what a fact is.
As it happens there are more Moral realists than Hillside wants to let on.
If facts are what is real then moral philosophers are presenting facts.
Evasion noted.
There is a difference between the definition of the word and if there are different types surely. A fact is something which us known or proven to be true. Based on this what different types of fact are there?OK let's stick to that definition.
Type of fact? Are there different types?
OK let's stick to that definition.
In which we can say that there is no one here who has claimed to have proved God.
Which leaves us with those people who say that since God has not been proved we can assume that God is proved to be NOT.
Maeght,I know God is a fact because that is my faith? Who is saying that?
It's Vlad. If you asked him what the capital of Italy is and he didn't want to answer, he'd come back with "depends what you mean by "capital"", "can you define "Italy"?", "what law-making body do you think designated capital city status?" and wearily on until eventually the question he was originally asked is forgotten and everyone has lost interest. He clearly knows what's meant by "fact" in the context of "God is a fact" but doesn't like thinking about why the statement "I know God is a fact because that's my faith" should be taken seriously so he ducks and dives instead until the problem goes away.
It's actually a variant on the Gish Gallop, only instead of drowning you in assertions he drowns you in prevarications and obfuscations, and when you won't play he has the Grand Canyon-sized front to accuse you of "evasion".
'Twas ever thus.
OK let's stick to that definition.
In which we can say that there is no one here who has claimed to have proved God.
Which leaves us with those people who say that since God has not been proved we can assume that God is proved to be NOT.
Vlad,You mean like whether someone is Goddodging or knows he's Goddodging are two different matters.
- ie, whether someone is guessing or knows he's guessing are different matters.
Noah's ark is not God, Exodus is not God.
No, but then what is? They are claims from the same source, that are testable, and that so far have failed those tests. Given source material making outlandish claims, why would be accept the outlandish claims when the commonplace claims are demonstrably unreliable?But a belief in God does not necessitate belief in the ark or exodus as anything more than myth.
O.
I know God is a fact because that is my faith? Who is saying that?
You mean like whether someone is Goddodging or knows he's Goddodging are two different matters.
I don't know if it's absolutely impossible. Do Moslems have visions of Mohammed?
But a belief in God does not necessitate belief in the ark or exodus as anything more than myth.
Sorry you seem to be arguing with me as a biblical literalist. Pure New Atheist caricature on your part.
I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology.....and we can courtesy of Messrs Brian Greene and the very wonderful Mr N De Grasse Tyson....
No - you'd need to demonstrate as a fact "God" before the claim could be "dodged",
I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology.....and we can courtesy of Messrs Brian Greene and the very wonderful Mr N De Grasse Tyson....Coming shortly to a message board near you GODDODGING EXPOSED........the END OF ATHEISM?
I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology.....and we can courtesy of Messrs Brian Greene and the very wonderful Mr N De Grasse Tyson....
I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology
This is a joke of sorts, right?
This is a joke of sorts, right?Only to somebody who wouldn't accept demonstration of Goddodging as Goddodging although heaven knows what IS being dodged by continually pushing the button for ''not god'' in any and every debate.
Again we have to look at how God's are being believed.
In my book therefore tales of carousing and shagging on mount Olympus are about as religiously edifying as tales of carousing and shagging at a New Atheist convention i.e. not very.
Only to somebody who wouldn't accept demonstration of Goddodging as Goddodging...
...although heaven knows what IS being dodged by continually pushing the button for ''not god'' in any and every debate.
Vlad,
Veeeeery slooowly now: you cannot "demonstrate" "goddodging" unless you can demonstrate FIRST that there is a god to be dodged.
Something?
Anything?
One of your favourite lies. You do know that investing heavily in a mistake is not a good reason to stick with it right?
Vlad,And my contention is that for all the debate what is actually going on for several is that people are goddodging and therefore have an inkling of what it is they are dodging. St Augustine was one such person who worked out that all his explorations amounted to, yes, Goddodging.
Veeeeery slooowly now: you cannot "demonstrate" "goddodging" unless you can demonstrate FIRST that there is a god to be dodged.
Something?
Anything?
One of your favourite lies. You do know that investing heavily in a mistake is not a good reason to stick with it right?
And my contention is that for all the debate what is actually going on for several is that people are goddodging and therefore have an inkling of what it is they are dodging. St Augustine was one such person who worked out that all his explorations amounted to, yes, Goddodging.
Now I'm sure there will be people who will be running but never turning during their lifetime.
There may be people who actually acknowledge that they are Goddodging.
There may even be people who never realise that is what they are doing.
There may be people who have made such a big case for themselves against God they would prefer any fate except admitting they were wrong.
But all that is needed is demonstrating that the only object they have in the question of God is not the science or the philosophy but just God.
You classifying something as 'god-dodging' doesn't make the classification valid. I could suggest that you are Leprechaun dodging, and unless I can demonstrate Leprechauns that's a meaningless concept.Anybody reduced to arguing against something because there is still a bit of God in it, is obviously at that point merely wrestling God and i'm afraid, that is religion. As is trying to find a way out of ending up in that predicament.
Unfortunately, those people are usually the ones that don't have opportunity to turn before their explosive waistcoat goes off...
I fail to understand how anyone that is not mentally ill would do such a thing - if you believe in a god what's the benefit of not acknowledging that?
If they don't realise they're doing it, can they be classified as doing it? Are you dodging something if you don't believe it's there?
Possible. You don't seem to hear about them, you only hear about the ones that want to shout it from the rooftops... :)
I can't get a handle on what you're trying to say here.
O.
Anybody reduced to arguing against something because there is still a bit of God in it, is obviously at that point merely wrestling God and i'm afraid, that is religion.
Apparently Fred Hoyle didn't like Big Bang because it left a role for the man upstairs.
It's about religion, but that doesn't make it religious. People might argue about the last vestiges of 'god-ness' in a concept because they find gods to be pernicious ideas that spread from innocuous roots into dangerous world-spanning terrorist organisations.
And my contention is that for all the debate what is actually going on for several is that people are goddodging and therefore have an inkling of what it is they are dodging. St Augustine was one such person who worked out that all his explorations amounted to, yes, Goddodging.
Now I'm sure there will be people who will be running but never turning during their lifetime. There may be people who actually acknowledge that they are Goddodging. There may even be people who never realise that is what they are doing.
There may be people who have made such a big case for themselves against God they would prefer any fate except admitting they were wrong.
But all that is needed is demonstrating that the only object they have in the question of God is not the science or the philosophy but just God.
Acceptance of simulated universe and denial of ID is that demonstration.
Sounds like you might be dodging God by raising a desperate objection there.
What about those who abandon religion on those grounds but not God?
What about those who abandon religion on those grounds but not God?
Sounds like you might be falling somewhere between teleology and post-hoc rationalisations (from your believers perspective, of course) and misattributing a failure to accept unevidenced assertions.Doesn't quite fit in the case of acceptance of Simulated universe as a hypothesis and rejecting ID because it has that God bloke in it.....Does it?
Doesn't quite fit in the case of acceptance of Simulated universe as a hypothesis and rejecting ID because it has that God bloke in it.....Does it?
What is the only thing we are trying to avoid here? God, of course.
Vlad,If all that were true.
More begging the question? Seriously though?
You can no more accuse someone of "abandoning God" than you can of "dodging" God" until and unless you can demonstrate first a god to be abandoned/dodged. The most you could say is that they abandoned their belief in "God", regardless of what your blind faith tells you.
You mean like whether someone is Goddodging or knows he's Goddodging are two different matters.
Doesn't quite fit in the case of acceptance of Simulated universe as a hypothesis and rejecting ID because it has that God bloke in it.....Does it?
What is the only thing we are trying to avoid here? God, of course.
Funny experience you know Vlad, the wind was blowing these invisible non-existent bouldersLet me stop you there, Joe...
If all that were true.
What business do you have dodging God in special pleading against him?
This is similar to another question asked of you. If nothing is substantially actually Good or bad, what are you doing dicking around using those terms?
Let me stop you there, Joe...
If they were invisible how do you know they were boulders?
Vlad,In the case of simulated universe and ID there is special pleading.
Desperate, desperate stuff. There's no "special pleading", just logic and reason,
Vlad,I haven't declared what my belief on the matter is.........your trouble Hillside is that you don't pay sufficient attention.
Faith. Why don't you believe him then?
Let me stop you there, Joe...
If they were invisible how do you know they were boulders?
In the case of simulated universe and ID there is special pleading.
I'm afraid a far greater Antitheist than your self PZ Myers already recognises the danger of what Dr DG Tyson is proposing to the cause. In otherwords acceptance of simulated means New Atheism is untenable.
Expect a railing back on work on multiverses and simulated universe among antitheistically motivated scientists.
You've had a shock today guys I know......and a lot has got to sink in. But anyway chosen to extract New atheism from the predicament can only be seen as further Goddodging.
Some idiot said I was invisible non-existent boulder dodging,If it was invisible, how do you know it was a boulder?
Vlad,Simulated universes idiocy? Not idiotic enough for Dr Neil De Grasse Tyson( whose repute is endorsed by no less than Shaker) to propose them and for PZ Myers to get worked up over?
So much idiocy in so few words...
Your problem here isn't so much your relentless trolling as, well, that you're just not very good at it.
Some idiot said I was invisible non-existent boulder dodgingWeally?Twuly?
What about them? They're an example of the sort of apparently harmless innocuous situations that allow more immediately harmful ideas to survive: each of those 'non-religious believers' and 'spiritual but not religious' and 'non-threatening Christians' and 'modern Muslims' is a veneer of respectability that religion waves with one hand to hide behind whilst the other plants bombs and subjugates women and ethnic groups and slaps down scientific research...Your blind faith in religion having two hands is certainly a fascinating picture. In your blind faith, are the two hands connected to one brain? Your fervour certainly seems to help you create vivid images - maybe you find these beliefs helpful to you in some way.
O.
If it was invisible, how do you know it was a boulder?
I didn't know if there were any boulders Vlad but when you get a nutter telling you that you have to dodge invisible non-existent boulders it's a good idea to humour them, you know, you then say things like, 'yes of course they exist' and then pretend to believe the poor deluded fellow, that kept on asserting things he couldn't possibly know anything about.Josef.
Even though you know he's talking out of the other end, (I in put the lavatorial bit specially for you Vlad).
Kind regards ippy
Your blind faith in religion having two hands is certainly a fascinating picture.
In your blind faith, are the two hands connected to one brain?
Your fervour certainly seems to help you create vivid images - maybe you find these beliefs helpful to you in some way.
Josef.
Are you calling me a nutter?
Was the metaphor a bit too much for you?I found it very interesting. Always happy to learn. So about these 2 hands that you brought up...as a "metaphor" - how are they connected or is it part of your blind faith that they are 2 disembodied hands that aren't connected? You must have picked hands in your imagery for a reason - or was it just a random guess? Could the metaphor have just as easily been 2 dogs wagging their tails?
Simulated Universe hypothesis?
We're talking about religion, I'm waiting to see evidence that they're attached to any sort of rational processing.
Simulated Universe hypothesis?
I found it very interesting. Always happy to learn. So about these 2 hands that you brought up...as a "metaphor" - how are they connected or is it part of your blind faith that they are 2 disembodied hands that aren't connected?
You must have picked hands in your imagery for a reason - or was it just a random guess? Could the metaphor have just as easily been 2 dogs wagging their tails?
Some idiot said I was invisible non-existent boulder dodging, you know I found it very difficult to think what on Earth was he thinking about, perhaps he was a few coppers short of shilling, he was certainly very odd.If someone imagined that an idiot, who was perhaps a few coppers short of a shilling, was talking to them, is that a sign of madness? Just wondering?
Thanks for asking Vlad.
Regards ippy
What of it? Are you suggesting that it's a religion?Well it has a creator who knows what they are doing who isn't part of the simulation but can guide it and fine tune it's parameters and maybe put a pop up ot two (Bostrom) so yep, it's pretty much there. Unless you try to get round it by saying that's not religion....religion is veneers and handwaving and bombs etc.....but that would be, er, trying to get round it.
O.
They are the 'two hands of religion'. I guess it's up to you whether you think they're an embodiment of 'the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing' or 'giving with one hand, taking back with the other'...You tell me - it's your metaphor. What does your blind faith lead you to believe? Are the two hands controlled by one brain - according to your blind faith I mean?
Two dogs would give the impression that these were two different peas in a pod, rather than, say, two sides of the same coin...Ah so you see religion as an inanimate benign object? Harmless until a person decides what to do with the coin?
O.
Well it has a creator who knows what they are doing who isn't part of the simulation but can guide it and fine tune it's parameters and maybe put a pop up ot two (Bostrom) so yep, it's pretty much there. Unless you try to get round it by saying that's not religion....religion is veneers and handwaving and bombs etc.....but that would be, er, trying to get round it.
The idea of simulated universes is usually connected with the idea of advanced aliens, who might have the technology to do this. I don't see what this has to do with atheism or religion.It is an affirmative answer to a) where did we come from b) Does the universe have a purpose, c) was the universe created b) was there a creator.
It is an affirmative answer to a) where did we come from b) Does the universe have a purpose, c) was the universe created b) was there a creator.
This has enormous implications for atheism.
'Can guide it' and 'do guide it' are different things, and most religions make some sort of claim to a moral 'sanctity' on the part of the creator, but I guess you could see it as sort of stripped down version of religion... except that I don't see a suggestion of worship in there:I can see how someone whose understanding of worship is limited to a caricature believer on his knees going ''Oh Lord I beseech thee as a miserable sinner snivel snivel'' might see know worship.
Worship starts when you acknowledge the creator, when you value his or her or it;s contribution and generally start thinking of the creator as an intelligent entity instead of a caricature.
No more so than panspermia does, it just moves the question up a level. If we are a simulation run by aliens or humans, we're then faced with the questions 'where did they come from', 'what's their purpose', 'did they have a creator'...So what?
I acknowledge my father as my creator - biologically and socially - but that's a long, long way from worship.Another Damn I must get another definition of worship otherwise i'm back in God territory moment Outrider?
O.
So what?
The creator of a simulated universe is to all intents and purposes God since we wouldn't be here without the creator and also our continued existence would not be dependent on this universe.
In fact the more you think about it the more like God it becomes in a way, and your avoidance of that yet further evidence of Goddodging....I guess that explains attempts to besmirch such a creator as a spotty geek.
Retrace your steps on these posts Outrider...suspiciously like avoiding the cracks in the pavement?
Another Damn I must get another definition of worship otherwise i'm back in God territory moment Outrider?
I've changed my post as I saw it doesn't apply to you.
I've not attempted to besmirch anyone.
O.
I've changed my post as I saw it doesn't apply to you.
Either we have markedly different understandings of the word 'worship', or you're just messing around now.I would suggest that we have arrived at a God who you won't worship. Since you seem to be suggesting that the creator is only God if it gets worship....Looks like you have dodged your way up your own alley.
O.
I would suggest that we have arrived at a God who you won't worship. Since you seem to be suggesting that the creator is only God if it gets worship....Looks like you have dodged your way up your own alley.
No, I'm suggesting that if someone said that god was some guy playing 'The Sims' on his quantum-computing console, that no-one would be suggesting we necessarily need to worship them or follow their words as moral precepts. And it wouldn't explain our origins, it would simply add a further step in the process, as we'd now need to explain the origin of the console-guy.I somehow knew you would get to the geeky guy in the basement...and I confess that if I had to find an excuse not to worship God that would be the God I would go for.
It's a creation-story, if you want to phrase it that way, but it doesn't posit the creator as a god.
O.
It is an affirmative answer to a) where did we come from b) Does the universe have a purpose, c) was the universe created b) was there a creator.
This has enormous implications for atheism.
I somehow knew you would get to the geeky guy in the basement...and I confess that if I had to find an excuse not to worship God that would be the God I would go for.
However geek guy is a punt isn't it or as I like to put it an exercise in Goddodging.
Looking honestly what it is is an attempt to demean the creator.
And it doesn't detract that we have arrived, reasonably at a person or at least an intelligence that is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the universe who could alternatively have many admirable qualities....maybe at a stretch perhaps this is something we could learn to respect, or fear or maybe even learn to love.
Yes there are questions about the simulator but if we are in a created universe/simulated universe that doesn't negate there being a creator.
I see that you couldn't resist quote-mining, as you cut out my clause, 'since the aliens are not supernatural'. I wonder why you did that? Maybe because a naturalistic creator is not particularly germane to religion or atheism, as far as I can see, and super-advanced aliens would be that - naturalistic, not supernatural.Aliens aren't usually supernatural because they are usually posited as being within the confines of this universe. But the type of alien we would be talking about would not be of this universe and that is what makes them supernatural.
The person running the sim and the person that created the programme wouldn't necessarily be the same individual, and we have no way of telling which it is.All Granted. it could be a pantheon......or something we experience as a trinity.....or whatever.
Not really - even if you want the computer programmer/software designer/design team that built the programme rather than the person making the decisions on the seeding, they're still not (necessarily) qualitatively different to the basement console guy, and that's not something that's intrinsically worthy of worship.
No, it's an attempt to depict a possible creator honestly. Creating something doesn't make you sacred.
I could go for all of those, but none of them are 'worship'. There's nothing 'sanctified' about this creator, if they exist.
No, but it doesn't suggest that it's 'The' creator, it's as worthy of worship as natural selection, which is our current understanding of our creator.
O.
I'm suggesting that if someone said that god was some guy playing 'The Sims' on his quantum-computing console,Sorry to say it but this just shows more thinking about the implications of simulated universes needs to be done.......and New atheism isn't going to help.
Aliens aren't usually supernatural because they are usually posited as being within the confines of this universe. But the type of alien we would be talking about would not be of this universe and that is what makes them supernatural.
Secondly they would , as, not part of this universe, look to all intents and purposes supernatural.
Thirdly what is that makes something supernatural?
I think if you think about it we have arrived at a God who was natural but has supernatural attributes.
Forthly I would contend that even a natural universe has supernatural aspects since either it is eternal or it popped into existence itself or it had assistance to do so.
You seem to be changing the notion of the supernatural quite a lot. I've never seen it defined as being outside the universe. Traditionally, God was defined as a spirit, in the old confessions, 'a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible', and so on.
I suppose somebody could propose that there are aliens who are like this, but I don't think that's usually considered.
You seem to be changing the notion of the supernatural quite a lot. I've never seen it defined as being outside the universe. Traditionally, God was defined as a spirit, in the old confessions, 'a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible', and so on.I think you are confusing God with the supernatural here.
I suppose somebody could propose that there are aliens who are like this, but I don't think that's usually considered.
Wiggs,Oh no another post about me........ha ha ha.
He's flip-flopping between a "supernatural" (ie outside the laws of nature) creator and a natural one, though why he'd want to worship either is anyone's guess - as indeed is why either would want to be worshipped. He's also trying a bit of Deepak Chopra-style "let's sound all sciency and stuff" re multiverse, simulated universe etc hypotheses as if that in some way validates "whatever pops into my head must be true somewhere".
I think you are confusing God with the supernatural here.
The definition includes the imperviousness of investigation by natural means…
…which something not of this universe certainly is.
Your post though is an exercise in choosing some divine attributes and excluding others for the purposes solely of eliminating the divine.
That, is Goddodging.
Certainly a simulators intervention would appear as supernatural
Oh no another post about me........ha ha ha.Come now, Vlad, my tiny poppadom, you both love it and power your central heating, and that of four neighbours, by the warmth generated from your ears burning.
Vlad,Hillside If you assent to simulated universe theory you assent to an intelligent designer who is definitionally outside of the universe, you assent to an intelligent creator with the power to intervene. To then try allsorts of contortions to then avoid the obvious parallels with God is Goddodging taken to new heights each contortion a classic in avoidance.
Then, as ever, you think wrongly.
Definition of what? Supernatural? Well, it’s your claim so it’s for you to tell us how you’d define it. Other than, “not natural” I have no idea what you mean by it, and nor how you’d investigate the claim at all – and nor it seems have you.
“Would be”, not “is”. You’re overreaching again.
It’s no such thing.
You can’t “dodge” something when you’ve been given no reason to think there’s something to dodge. Hasn’t this sunk in yet?
It might, but that doesn’t mean that it would be. So?
Hillside If you assent to simulated universe theory…
…you assent to an intelligent designer who is definitionally outside of the universe,…
…you assent to an intelligent creator with the power to intervene.
To then try allsorts of contortions to then avoid the obvious parallels with God is Goddodging taken to new heights each contortion a classic in avoidance.
All I seem to have to do is mention the word God and to use a horse racing metaphor...''and their off''.
I've not been Deepak Chopra....
More Neil De grasse Tyson who has upset PZ Myers.
Vlad,
So many mistakes…
It’s not a "theory” at all – it’s a hypothesis. And you don’t “assent” to hypotheses, you just await (or look for) evidence that validates or invalidates them.
No, just one who would be (or would have been) perhaps outside the universe of which you’re aware, but who may well not have been outside “the universe” as a whole.
No, for all you know it could have been done by a super advanced species that set up the technology and then died out.
Epically wrong. See above, and you don’t just get to jump from conjectures about very smart but naturalistic aliens to a supernatural god.
The only horse here is the one you attempted to ride a while back along the lines of, “If it can’t be explained naturally then it must be supernatural” until the poor nag collapsed and died under the weight of its own ludicrousness.
Yes you have. Attempting vaguely sciency-sounding terms you don’t understand or mischaracterise doesn’t help you.
Then give us some citations so we can examine your claim. So far though, you’re all over the floor.
It's been great watching your gyrations chaps.Does that mean you are off for another flounce? (He said, ever hopeful).
Is this you?
1: I assent to simulated universe hypothesis and that it is a hypothesis, without prejudice to any results or conclusions
2: I Therefore…
…I understand that this includes an intelligent designer/creator and maintainer of the universe who is not part of this universe.
3: I understand that such an intelligent designer could make intervention in the universe so simulated at any time and at any point
4: I have therefore no reason to assent to any suggestion of God, an intelligent designer/creator and maintainer of the universe who is not part of this universe and can intervene in the universe.
Vlad,Always have and it seems you are supporting that it's a hypothesis and we have walked through that hypothesis and are still able to accept it as a hypothesis. A hypothesis which is about an intelligent designer who created and maintains the universe yet is not part of the universe and all that is a reasonable hypothesis.... But God, an intelligent designer who created and maintains the universe and is not part of the universe is completely unreasonable, white noise, not even wrong.
Well, at least you understand now that it’s just a hypothesis
If someone imagined that an idiot, who was perhaps a few coppers short of a shilling, was talking to them, is that a sign of madness? Just wondering?
But God, an intelligent designer who created and maintains the universe and is not part of the universeDo you subscribe to that ?
Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense. To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't. Some people may do that but certainly doesn't apply generally to atheist I know. Is this just more distraction to avoid answering questions put?In a word - yes.
It just looks to me that Vlad is smply playing a game of no-goddodging. ;D...or noGod-dodging?
Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense. To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't.I think it applies to anybody who supports one theory as a valid hypothesis proposing a universe simulator... an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it and intervene but rejects a theory as a valid hypothesis proposing God, an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it an intervene.
I think it applies to anybody who supports one theory as a valid hypothesis proposing a universe simulator... an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it and intervene but rejects a theory as a valid hypothesis proposing God, an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it an intervene.Do you accept both as valid?
What is the difference between the two, the word avoided? That's right ''God''.
Do you accept both as valid?I'm not sure there is a both since ID is IMO a subset of simulated universe.
Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense. To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't. Some people may do that but certainly doesn't apply generally to atheist I know. Is this just more distraction to avoid answering questions put?
I'd go with your post. Maeght, in fact it's something that Vlad should be reconised for, without a doubt he is an exceptional exponent of avoiding any questions he has thrown in his direction, in fact it'd be interesting to go back over his posts and try to find something he has actualy answered.What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?
ippy
I'm not sure there is a both since ID is IMO a subset of simulated universe.Really?
.
Really?well lets see
I think it applies to anybody who supports one theory as a valid hypothesis proposing a universe simulator... an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it and intervene but rejects a theory as a valid hypothesis proposing God, an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it an intervene.
What is the difference between the two, the word avoided? That's right ''God''.
????
Yes if something like that were imagined you could be right, but there when taken out of context you can, as you've done here, make any post appear to say anything you like.Funny business - this taking out of context thing you describe. You're right that it can make written things appear to say anything you like. I seem to recall various atheists and theists doing this to religious texts.
ippy
????
well lets seeID does not fall into the "simulated" set.
Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.
ID has a candidate for intelligent design where there is an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.
Venn diagrams and that.
Firstly saying 'supported one theory as a valid hypothesis' suggests you're not clear about what hypothesis and theory mean. However, if someone proposed an hypothesis as you outline then it you nature of this intelligent controller would be a factor to consider. The God of the bible could of course but put forward for this role,as could any diety or any other thing wanted to put forward. Personally I don't think the theology of the God of the Bible fits with this proposed controller but others may disagree. The God of the bible cannot be ruled out if considering candidates for the controller but has no more strength as a candidate than any other diety or any other proposed being.Let's compare job descriptions
The phrase God dodging suggests that the God of the bible is the strongest candidate and is being ignored, but that,'s not the case.and using such over the top phrases really doesn't help.
ID does not fall into the "simulated" set.Are you sure? Show your working out.
Try again.
All Granted. it could be a pantheon......or something we experience as a trinity.....or whatever.
So lets just call it an ''it'' and you refuse to worship it on what looks suspiciously like religious grounds... would that negate it's existence?
No, I refuse to worship it because a) it's an hypothesis without sufficient supporting evidence at the moment and b) because creating something doesn't make you worthy of worship - as you listed, respected perhaps or feared, but not worshipped.a) fair enough.
O.
Funny business - this taking out of context thing you describe. You're right that it can make written things appear to say anything you like. I seem to recall various atheists and theists doing this to religious texts.
Based on Outrider's blind faith beliefs about religion, one could argue that your words may well be harmless but language holds your harmless words in one hand while the other hand uses language to cause oppression, killing and mayhem. Outrider never did clarify if there was a disembodied brain controlling these hands he believes in.
Let's compare job descriptions
Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.
Theistic God: an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.
Look pretty similar to me.
b) I disagree. What makes your claim sounder?
This is quite a selective description of the God of the Bible isn't it? Where would Jesus as the Son of God fit in for example?It is standard Theism Maeght.
I do not know how to worship - I wonder if any of the believers here can provide a clear explanation of how to do it?
It is standard Theism Maeght.
1: I agree it is not exhaustive...
...... but what it isn't is atheism unless atheism is now the same as theism.
2:Where does Jesus fit in? This about Professor Bostrom who is a lead simulation proponent
''Epistemologically, it is not impossible to tell whether we are living in a simulation. For example, Bostrom suggests that a window could pop up saying: "You are living in a simulation. Click here for more information." ....................l.........might be difficult for the native inhabitants to identify and for purposes of authenticity, even the simulated memory of a blatant revelation might be purged programmatically. Nonetheless, should any evidence come to light, either for or against the skeptical hypothesis, it would radically alter the aforementioned probability.'' wikipedia
Jesus fits the description of that window.
I am not beholden to worship something because it's creative - I don't worship the tea-lady, I don't worship Tracy Emin (or even any of the good artists), I don't worship carpenters...I agree that it is down to a value judgment....and of course the interpretation of worthship.
Perhaps it's an aesthetic thing, but the very idea of 'worship' strikes me as singularly wrong - it's a self-debasing concept to think of something else as being somehow more worthy or significant, inherently, to the point of expecting servility.
O.
Which is my point. There is much more to the God of the Bible than that.Point one May be true but how does that help atheism?
I guess you could come up with any story to fit in with such an hypothesis.
Not God dodging though.
I do not know how to worship - I wonder if any of the believers here can provide a clear explanation of how to do it?Worship is derived from worth ship as far as I can see. I see it therefore as something we are doing all the time to various degrees. For a believer the ultimate worship state is following Jesus' commandment ''Love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.''
Point one May be true but how does that help atheism?
Point two Only if it fits and unfortunately acceptance of another universe opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.
Point three since there is no material difference in description between the simulator and God any desire to eliminate the word God must just be related to the word and that doesn't look like a very rational move since it forgets the maxim ''If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck''.
In other words if you can't stand the word God but can stand the description of God you've probably Got a God phobia.
Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation...
..which maintains it's creation,...
...who can intervene in that creation...
...and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.
This is quite a selective description of the God of the Bible isn't it? Where would Jesus as the Son of God fit in for example?
Vlad,Point 1 Granted................ How does that help atheism?,
1:Intelligent enough to create that universe, though whether that creator in turn would also be an inhabitant of a simulated universe of which it wasn't aware is unknowable.
2:Nope. You'd have no idea about that. For all you'd know this "creator" could have wound up the clock and then buggered off, died, whatever.
3:And even if you hadn't got all that wrong still all you'd have in any case is a hypothesis - an idea that could be right but cannot be (or hasn't been) validated.
4:Have I told you about my "assent" the the "gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible strings" hypothesis by the way?
Are you sure? Show your working out.Yes.
Worship is derived from worth ship as far as I can see. I see it therefore as something we are doing all the time to various degrees.How are you doing it?
For a believer the ultimate worship state is following Jesus' commandment ''Love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.''Well, that is just passively following guidelines. Where's the worship in that?
Point one. Who is suggesting this helps atheism,whatever that means. What do you mean by that?How are aardvarks capable of simulating universes? When did that happen? We've never created one anywhere near the sophistication of our own universe?........What a potty suggestion.
Point two. As you say,all sorts of possibilities, which was my point.
Point three. As I said, God of the bible has equal claim as any other diety or creature anyone wants to propose. It is not the obvious candidate so to not mention God of the bible specifically isn't God dodging. It could be God. It could be Zeus. It could be Derrick the Ardvark.Are you Zeus dodging?
Point 1 Granted................ How does that help atheism?,
2 Granted.................How does that help atheism?
Point 3 Granted..........How does it help atheism…
…since thanks to the creator we are still going and dying creators are not unknown you know?
Point 4:As long as it doesn't have fucking leprechauns in it, go ahead.
For a believer the ultimate worship state is following Jesus' commandment ''Love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.''
The point is the Creator of the universe, whatever you call it has to have characteristics of the Abrahamic God or even a divine pantheon.Why does it have to have those characteristics?
What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?
Don't turn your lack of interest in what I have to say into my unwillingness to answer a question.
Yes, Vlad is being utterly disingenuous, in saying that the Christian God is like an engineer of universes. Hang on, that seems to leave out a ton of stuff, such as having a son, who atones for our sins. God is also supernatural, or 'pure spirit in eternity', as the ancient documents have it, but I've never seen any suggestion that advanced aliens are. If there is universe engineering, it is a natural process, just as constructing a video game is.This is all very well but how does it help atheism? PZ Myers has shat a whale over this already.
Possibly because they are often so vaguely worded or poetically translated that there is no obvious context, or when you take them in context they're vile.Ippy seems to think his post was taken out of context. I saw nothing particularly vague or poetic about his post but it's all individual taste and opinion I suppose - if you found his post (that he says was taken out of context) vague or poetic - ok.
Is it blind faith when you have people killing for their religion in numerous places around the world, or is it an acknowledgment of the available evidence?I was talking about your blind faith about religion that was outlined in your strange metaphor about hands. Does your faith include believing that these two hands are controlled by a shared brain or are they two disembodied hands that aren't connected to each other, in which case why pick hands? Maybe you picked hands at a sub-conscious level without really knowing why - parental indoctrination maybe? And you were saying something abut evidence in relation to your two hands belief?
O.
What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?
What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?This'll do for a start.
It wouldn't matter what the question was that might be put to you Vlad, I've yet to see you give a straight answer to any questions asked of you; you are like most of your fellow travellers very good at asserting knowledge that you can't possibly know or support.If someone tells me there is a non existent tea pot falling on my head I look to confirm it's non existence because the person suggesting a non existent tea pot could be dangerous and untrustworthy and it could be a real one.
Perhaps you might for just this one time give a straight answer to this question: how does anyone avoid something that's not there in the first place to be able to avoid, something like a non-existent tea pot for example?
It'll be moderately interesting to see how you avoid this question, no doubt you'll stay true to your form, no reply'll count as a non answer too.
Regards ippy
Vlad,A scientific hypothesis has to be testable old son....so show us the pixies.
Atheism doesn’t need to be “helped”. It merely rests on falsifying the arguments attempted for gods, which is what I just did in response to your, “Simulated universe necessarily proposes…” etc.
See above.
See above.
Incoherent. Point 3 explained that still all you’d have is a hypothesis. Why then treat it as anything else?
It’s not about leprechauns, or pixies. It’s about a hypothesis being just that – a hypothesis. You can “assent” to any hypothesis you like if you want to, but asserting truth claims on the back of it is just blind faith.
Again.
Funny business - this taking out of context thing you describe. You're right that it can make written things appear to say anything you like. I seem to recall various atheists and theists doing this to religious texts.
Maybe you should stop posting about your beliefs on here in case someone takes your posts out of context and commits a terrible act.
Based on Outrider's blind faith beliefs about religion, one could argue that your words may well be harmless but language holds your harmless words in one hand while the other hand uses language to cause oppression, killing and mayhem. Outrider never did clarify if there was a disembodied brain controlling these hands he believes in.
If someone tells me there is a non existent tea pot falling on my head I look to confirm it's non existence because the person suggesting a non existent tea pot could be dangerous and untrustworthy and it could be a real one.
When I see someone running down the road while claiming he's standing still I have to wonder.
A scientific hypothesis has to be testable old son....so show us the pixies.
True to form Vlad, you just can't make yourself answer anything, can you?
...but I don't disbelieve in these various gods, all I think about them is I've heard of them and cant see there is any good reason to actually believe they're there in the first place to then be able to disbelieve in them, I describe myself as non-religious.
Vlad,you'd better ask Messrs Brian Greene, Neil De Grasse Tyson, N Bostrom, M Tegmark in fact any multiverser (Does that include antitheist pin up Sean Carroll?).
Whoosh!
Show us the simulated universe.
....then what?
What do I think of simulated universe theory? Initially Not science....
you'd better ask Messrs Brian Greene, Neil De Grasse Tyson, N Bostrom, M Tegmark in fact any multiverser (Does that include antitheist pin up Sean Carroll?).
This is their hypothesis and interestingly you called it a hypothesis too, and a pixie hypothesis too to boot.
My interest in it is that something can be presented as a universe simulator but when it is pointed out that that would have the attributes of God there are interesting and irrational responses therefore simulator an Intelligent designer Outside the universe is ''acceptable'', God an intelligent designer Outside the universe unacceptable even though they are effectively the same thing.
What's at stake is owning one's reactions and psychological states and if you've been caught out irrationally feeling phobic toward the word God...investigate that.
The simulation theory…
…also has an explanation for theism and atheism and encompasses metaphysical naturalism, If the simulation theory is correct...atheism is wrong.
What do I think of simulated universe theory?
Initially Not science....but when you get a heavyweight pair like B Greene and NDG Tyson for it..............
....then what?Confusion, panic, hot flush, palpitations, involuntary sphincter contractions, then shitting of whale.
Vlad,Hillside it doesn't for me on this board matter what the status or credibility of any of the theories are are as I've pointed out,
A hypothesis is a hypothesis is a hypothesis is a…
If you want to “assent” to just one such and then make truth claims on the back of it you have no argument against anyone else doing the same thing for any other hypothesis.
You’ve had explained to you already that your “pointed out” fails – see Reply 246 for example.
No-one has been “caught out” doing that. What’s actually happened is that the arguments you’ve attempted for “God” have been falsified – no more, no less.
It’s not a fucking theory. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
There’s so much wrong in that sentence it’s hard to know where to start:
1. It has no “explanation for theism and atheism”. It just says that the universe “we” think we observe could be a simulated one. That’s it.
2. It doesn’t “encompass metaphysical naturalism” at all. You’d have no knowledge whatever about whether the simulator in chief was naturalistic or something else.
3. “…if the simulationtheoryhypothesis is correct” is epistemically equivalent to “if the pixie gravity hypothesis is correct. The “if” is everything.
4. Even if it is correct, it would tell you nothing whatever about atheism.
Well, you think it’s a theory rather than a hypothesis for starters it seems. Which is odd really given that you also told us a few posts back that you “always have” known it to be just a hypothesis.
That’s an attempted argument from authority, and they’re not “for it” at all – they just think it’s a credible hypothesis.
You’re now at Mariana Trench levels of out of your depthness.
Hillside it doesn't for me on this board matter what the status or credibility of any of the theories are are as I've pointed out,
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge sameness in two things which are er, the same.
Do you agree that the description I put for the simulator equally fits the basic theistic criteria? Intelligent designer/creator, not part of the universe, not dependent on the universe? If not then let's hear your alternative.
Whether you manage to brow beat me or use jedi grade turdpolishing on me, this ain't going to go away is it? particularly with the gang of scientific heavy weights.
Since I am the Bond villain of the forum can I misquote a line from Le Chiffre........It looks like your friend Doctor De Grasse Tyson is really my friend......
Bwa Ha Ha Bwa Ha Ha Bwa Ha Ha.
ippy,
Never has, never will. He's the "dodger" in chief.
Trollboy,Alright theory then.
Give me strength…IT’S NOT A FUCKING THEORY!!!
What two things?
Of course not, and I told you why back in Reply 246. “Theistic criteria” involve the supernatural, something “outside time and space” etc. None of that can be adduced necessarily from a hypothesis about a simulated universe (or for that matter about lots of simulated universes).
It’s already “gone away” inasmuch as the arguments you attempted have been falsified.
No, you’re actually just the lying troll of this forum, which is a different matter.
Still no answer, just as you say?
Alright theory then.
And if you'd seen my reply to Wigginhall a simulator fulfils any requirement of the supernatural, outside time and space? How is outside the universe not supernatural? How is being totally independent of the universe not supernatural?, How do we know in what type of universe this type is the simulation? Probability dictates it isn't identical to ours.
I seem to be remaining with definition and you are getting into the ineffability of the supernatural Ha Ha Ha. You are merely tiddling about at the edges since the links with theism including the supernatural are already established
It looks as if you are avoiding all of this. And that is more the point I am trying to make.
Nothing your saying helps atheism does it? A defection by the greats on this scale?
Go figure.
Confusion, panic, hot flush, palpitations, involuntary sphincter contractions, then shitting of whale.Crap answer.
Crap answer.But you can't deny I was feeling a little funny.
ippy,
Not far from where I live is an abandoned railway line called the Flitch Way that we cycle along sometimes. The tracks have long since been removed, but lots of the Victorian station infrastructure is still there, including one with food served from the old booking hall and tables and chairs set out along the platform.
The people there enjoying their beans on toast and mugs of tea will catch a train sooner than Vlad answers a question.
I assume the beans on toast are served silver service, and the spoon is on a silver chain unlike the string in most of the cheep places I use.
I think Vlad knows he can't answer because of some investment he has in his supposed beliefs, he is finding it hard to give way in print to his investment in fallacies, maybe this would effect his social life in some way, but then I'm trying to be charitable.
Then there are cases like A B as well? Where did all of his lot come from?
I'm thinking of taking Sparky seriously, recently had the kitchen rewired with those double usb sockets, so I'm dynamic electrical energy ready for it.
Know the place well by the way, Mmmmm baked beans on toast.
Do you remember the road across the runway at that well known airport the one with traffic lights to hold up drivers when there were planes taking off, long gone now?
Can you list your most urgent questions Ippy?
I think Vlad knows he can't answer because of some investment he has in his supposed beliefs, he is finding it hard to give way in print to his investment in fallacies, maybe this would effect his social life in some way, but then I'm trying to be charitable.
Then there are cases like A B as well? Where did all of his lot come from?
I'm thinking of taking Sparky seriously, recently had the kitchen rewired with those double usb sockets, so I'm dynamic electrical energy ready for it.
Know the place well by the way, Mmmmm baked beans on toast.
Do you remember the road across the runway at that well known airport the one with traffic lights to hold up drivers when there were planes taking off, long gone now?
ippy
Can you list your most urgent questions Ippy?
I think you could be mistaking ''answers'' for ''answers I want to here''.
Vlad have you so little to do that you have to change your username every five minutes? ::)It's called living in the fast lane.
It's called living in the fast lane.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/
Vladd,...........and?
Vlad,
"Lisa Randall is the voice of reason who says she thinks the question is only interesting if we have a way to test it. You go, Lisa Randall. That’s how a scientist should think, and she finds the whole argument hilarious."
...........and?
Vlad,Hillside you were the one insisting it was a hypothesis ''Hypothesis is a Hypothesis is a Hypothesis'' I think was how you put it.
And you've "assented" to an argument that's "hilarious", then mischaracterised it, then decided it leads to "God", then decided to worship that outcome.
That's a quadfecta of wrongness.
But they are not identical. How is an extra-terrestrial alien like God?I fucking hope you mean an intelligent one able to create a universe(ours) it isn't dependent on.
Hillside you were the one insisting it was a hypothesis ''Hypothesis is a Hypothesis is a Hypothesis'' I think was how you put it.
I mentioned previously to you on this matter that a scientific hypothesis has to be testable.
I also told you that the rightness or wrongness of this was not my purpose which was to demonstrate that of two identical things antitheists will reject the one marked God even though they are identical.
That I move is God phobia since it can only be the label that stirs up unreasonable feelings.
I was thus able walk through De Grasse Tyson's hypothesis, identical to theistic claims…
…and somehow OK under the package of so called science.
I take it you will now be ripping down all your posters of that Boyband The Antitheist Multiversers
who had a hit a couple of years ago with ''Let's push the multiverse to settle the fine tuning problem''
Wasn't their lead singer Sean Carroll who you had a bit of a crush on a while back?
If Tyson had suggested that there are supernatural aliens, who out of their immense love, created universes out of nothing, we might be getting closer to theism. But I think he was speculating about the power of computers! In other words, that computers might become so powerful that they can simulate a universe, in a rather Matrix-like way.
Vlad has to misrepresent this, of course, as he does many things.
Wiggs,Sorry Wiggs and Hillside, when De Grasse Tyson suggests a simulated universe he suggests an intelligent creator of a universe, outside that universe, not dependent on that universe he is not only close to theism he has arrived!..........Just ask PZ Myers.
Quote
If Tyson had suggested that there are supernatural aliens, who out of their immense love, created universes out of nothing, we might be getting closer to theism. But I think he was speculating about the power of computers! In other words, that computers might become so powerful that they can simulate a universe, in a rather Matrix-like way.
Vlad has to misrepresent this, of course, as he does many things
Agree with all that, only for the analogy to work I'd also amend "suggested" to "asserted", "insisted" or similar.
Sorry Wiggs and Hillside, when De Grasse Tyson suggests a simulated universe he suggests an intelligent creator of a universe, outside that universe, not dependent on that universe he is not only close to theism he has arrived!..........Just ask PZ Myers.
Another dilemma. You like NDG Tyson but you're a bit partial to PZ Myers too. There is only one way to find out.
ippy,
That's what "atheism" means.
Vlad,Hillside. Simulation theory is not just yellow margarine tub ''I can't believe it's not theism''....It's gold foiled full dairy Anchor theism. Have a nice day.
Why do you misrepresent and lie so much?
First, if you’d bothered to read it you’d know that the the PZ Myers article actually buries you:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz4ukjnQMB8
Second, not for one moment does he say that NDGT has "arrived at theism". Here’s his actual conclusion:
“I also have to wonder if this is a general property of physicists, that they think they know so much that the only people they can imagine having a conversation about unverifiable, untestable, undetectable, hypothetical, imaginary foundational properties of the universe is a group of their fellow physicists (with one token philosopher).
Congratulations. They’ve discovered that they have something in common with theologians.”
Notice that “something in common”? He’s not saying that Tyson has arrived at theism at all – just that the arguments he’s attempting are as stupid as those of theologians.
Epic fail. Just epic.
The former tried a poor argument, the latter called him on it. So?
Hillside. Simulation theory is not just yellow margarine tub ''I can't believe it's not theism''....It's gold foiled full dairy Anchor theism. Have a nice day.
How are aardvarks capable of simulating universes? When did that happen? We've never created one anywhere near the sophistication of our own universe?........What a potty suggestion.
Why are you happy around the word zeus and specially pleading the awfulness of God.
The point is the Creator of the universe, whatever you call it has to have characteristics of the Abrahamic God or even a divine pantheon.
I'm wondering if you are heading towards we don't know but it can't be the God of the bible.
Also did you read what I put about Bostrom's windows?
1 Aardvarks in the simulated universe are different from those in the real universe outside of the simulation.Concerning aardvarks. Interesting contribution to simulation theory from you IMHO.
...apparently there's a difference.
Could someone have a go at explaining what it might be please?
Thanks.
Faith is to think and act on the basis of what we know of God and trusting him not to let us down.
It is based on what we know about God.
Blind faith is trusting in God when there is no precident in our situation and it looks bleak. It is about trusting God has our best interest at heart whatever the outcome and it will work to our good.
Joseph had blind faith. Though he was continually being brought down trapped in slavery, false accusations of rape and imprisoned he never gave up trusting God. Even when there seemed no reason to believe or hope for better he believed God
had a plan for his life.
So blind faith is trusting like Job and Joseph, when life isn't everything God promised it to be.
King James Version
My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.
Blind faith persists when all apparent hope seems lost in a situation. It focuses on God and not the situation.
That is my take on it..
No one actually KNOWS anything about god, it is all a matter of conjecture and belief.
So why start a thread yourself asking "Does God speak to you?"
If you cannot discuss matters or have nothing to offer by way of an 'argument' then perhaps you should give the religious topics a miss. You have nothing to bring to the discussion.
OK Faith is personal trust in an encountered personal God..... Blind faith is a term I've only heard atheists use in the place of faith.
:)
Blind faith is trusting in God when there is no precident in our situation and it looks bleak. It is about trusting God has our best interest at heart whatever the outcome and it will work to our good.
Joseph had blind faith. Though he was continually being brought down trapped in slavery, false accusations of rape and imprisoned he never gave up trusting God. Even when there seemed no reason to believe or hope for better he believed God
had a plan for his life.
So blind faith is trusting like Job and Joseph, when life isn't everything God promised it to be.
King James Version
My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.
Blind faith persists when all apparent hope seems lost in a situation. It focuses on God and not the situation.
That is my take on it..
Faith is to think and act on the basis of what we know of God and trusting him not to let us down.
It is based on what we know about God.
Blind faith is trusting in God when there is no precident in our situation and it looks bleak. It is about trusting God has our best interest at heart whatever the outcome and it will work to our good.
Sassy,
But if "what we know of God" is also a faith belief, what makes that faith not "blind" too?
What in other words makes you think you "know" even that there is a god at all but for personal faith?
Faith is to think and act on the basis of what we know of God and trusting him not to let us down.
It is based on what we know about God.
Blind faith is trusting in God when there is no precedent in our situation and it looks bleak. It is about trusting God has our best interest at heart whatever the outcome and it will work to our good.
Joseph had blind faith. Though he was continually being brought down trapped in slavery, false accusations of rape and imprisoned he never gave up trusting God. Even when there seemed no reason to believe or hope for better he believed God
had a plan for his life.
So blind faith is trusting like Job and Joseph, when life isn't everything God promised it to be.
King James Version
My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.
Blind faith persists when all apparent hope seems lost in a situation. It focuses on God and not the situation.
That is my take on it..
You can speak only as an atheist. I think it makes clear what Vlad was referring to.
Vlad and myself, who have faith 'see' and 'understand' what you cannot from the point of faith and truth.
Unless you have experienced God, you cannot possibly understand the true nature of faith is seeing.
There lies in the separation... the word 'think' it isn't about what we think we know. It is about what believing Gods words reveal to the person who has faith in God. As you have no faith nothing can be revealed to you. It is not about 'thinking' it is about acceptance, belief and experience.
You can speak only as an atheist. I think it makes clear what Vlad was referring to.
Vlad and myself, who have faith 'see' and 'understand' what you cannot from the point of faith and truth.
Unless you have experienced God, you cannot possibly understand the true nature of faith is seeing.
There lies in the separation... the word 'think' it isn't about what we think we know. It is about what believing Gods words reveal to the person who has faith in God. As you have no faith nothing can be revealed to you. It is not about 'thinking' it is about acceptance, belief and experience.
You can speak only as an atheist. I think it makes clear what Vlad was referring to.
Vlad and myself, who have faith 'see' and 'understand' what you cannot from the point of faith and truth.
Unless you have experienced God, you cannot possibly understand the true nature of faith is seeing.
You can speak only as an atheist. I think it makes clear what Vlad was referring to.
Vlad and myself, who have faith 'see' and 'understand' what you cannot from the point of faith and truth.
Unless you have experienced God, you cannot possibly understand the true nature of faith is seeing.
There lies in the separation... the word 'think' it isn't about what we think we know. It is about what believing Gods words reveal to the person who has faith in God. As you have no faith nothing can be revealed to you. It is not about 'thinking' it is about acceptance, belief and experience.
Why do you expect people to accept knowledge you claim to have about your idea of a he, she or it thing you refer to as god when you have zero evidence that would substantiate this assumed knowledge you claim to have about this so called he, she or it god figure that without evidence, can only be assumed to reside within your imagination?
ippy
How can you possibly know you've experienced this god of yours?
ippy
All you have is belief, not actual knowledge!
So can any one of us who is pissed out of his fucking wits on a Saturday night - or any other night for that matter!
Personally, he answers me.
He has answered prayers and delivered us many times from many situations.
When asked he has provided the impossible.
The impossible is not something we can create for ourselves.
WRONG. I have actual knowledge from experience.
Sassy,
As you put “see” and “understand” in inverted comas, that’s fair enough – lots of people believe in lots of things as articles of faith, and they too think they “see” and “understand” truths about those beliefs.
But there you’ve gone wrong. The question then is, if not for personal faith, what makes you think you have “experienced God”?
And if it is a belief that rests on personal faith, what makes that faith any less “blind” than anyone’s else’s faith in anything else?
How did you jump just then from thinking something is true to it actually being true? Faith gives you the former, but surely the latter requires something other than just faith doesn’t it for the belief to be validated?
The Word of God, the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Christ all validate the presence of God.
I acknowledge a world and experience the things you may not look into. Sometimes we do have to look beyond what we individually believe is the obvious to find truths which are not so.
Experience... If we have experienced Gods presence how do you refer back to personal faith without acknowledging that we actually know what the presence of God feels like? I am not sure you can actually lose your virginity and go back to knowing what it was like before as if it never happened. It is experienced and the once the unknown has now become the known you cannot return to unknowing it.
The Word of God, the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Christ all validate the presence of God.
You see we don't jump we experience the truth of God keeping his promises.
The way to God is plain but people like yourself never seek it. Your disbelief won't allow you. Your pride in your own beliefs and what you feel will not allow you. Who really is ruled by their feelings and not by what is actual truth?
Christians have a love of truth and so do most who come to God as having been really strong and ardent atheists. I believe tactics do not play in the reality of God. Only truth.
The thing is though Outrider, you don't strike me as someone who knows much about religious context. Fervent metaphors that don't make sense is more your area of expertise.
I was talking about your blind faith about religion that was outlined in your strange metaphor about hands.
Does your faith
...include believing that these two hands are controlled by a shared brain or are they two disembodied hands that aren't connected to each other, in which case why pick hands?
People kill in the name of words in numerous places around the world.
We could apply your metaphor to the two hands of language: Pretty words like "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” is just an apparently harmless innocuous situation that allows more immediately harmful ideas to survive, such as a formal declaration of war by a nation state.
Of course, maybe this "two hands of language" does not form part of your particular beliefs or world view?
You might just like to stick to the two hands of religion belief. Bit like some people finding a belief in Islam more appealing than Christianity.
WRONG. I have actual knowledge from experience.
Your choice of alcoholic spirits is your own personal choice and for that matter nothing to do with God.
Alcohol does not resemble not can it compete with the experience of God.
If you cannot answer in relation to the actual contents of a post, do you think discussing matters you are not experienced in is actually a wise move (with or without the liqeur)? You get aggressive and potty mouthed when you cannot give an answer which actually shows a balanced thought out argument. Maybe you should refrain from drinking on a Saturday night if it leads you to write the above.
Vlad, meet Sassy.
I dont recall anyone calling Sassy an atheist before.
Maybe you can explain yourself?
Odd that these two should be snuggling up - maybe it's a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Vlad, however - "driving in the fast lane" - seems to have suddenly crashed as a result of Sassy's comments. Maybe it just occurred to him that Sassy believes a modern version of the Arian heresy (that Christ is not God, but only the Son of God), and that he had commented on the ignominious death of Arius "That's what happens sometimes when people talk through their arse".*NUURRSSE!!!! Skidmark thinks he's back in 325 AD again
At any rate, Sassy's claim that they both have met God and no atheist could understand them until they had had a similar encounter is made to look more than a little ridiculous when this 'God' appears to have given them so divergent information on his relationship with his "Son".
*#152 & #153 "Who created the Deity?" thread
NUURRSSE!!!! Skidmark thinks he's back in 325 AD again...where were we?
Who and where do I say I expect people to accept any knowledge I claim to have about God? Surely, it is common sense that if a person seeks knowledge they inspect and search all avenues regarding their subject. As you cannot feel the pain of another or see through their eyes you cannot make accurate assumptions as to what they actually feel and see. You have to take their word. It is the same with many aspects of everyday human life. The point is being humble enough to see your own eyes and feelings are not really the only proof you have to experience the truth others experience but you do not.
You continually assert these god things as though they're facts without confirming any of your assertions so until you can confirm the things you say are truths forget it Sass, you've got no more idea than I have about any of your fanciful ideas/truths.
ippy
NUURRSSE!!!! Skidmark thinks he's back in 325 AD again
I don't think anyone 'knows' about religious context - they seem to decide fairly arbitrarily on 'context' that suits their purpose after the fact in order to justify the bits of the scripture that support what they want, and to ignore the bits that they've decided they don't. It's why you get such an enormously wide range of entirely scripturally-based opinions of what's 'true' Christianity and Islam and Judaism.Ok we could go with your crass generalisations. On the other hand that would mean ignoring the evidence that various people have spent many years studying the history of the period and the etymology of words in their original language as used in religious texts. That your blind faith in your beliefs require you to dismiss their research doesn't surprise me.
I think you're carrying a figure of speech way, way further than it should have been taken... almost like you're trying to find a context that suits your purpose...I think you are not explaining your poorly thought out metaphor about the two hands of religion.
It's a common literary tool to ascribe activities to notional 'hands', because as humans that's largely how we achieve things - with our hands. [In this instance it worked particularly well, because we have two hands (in the main), and there were two different examples of activity to refer to. As with any metaphor, if you try to take it further than it can reasonably go, it starts to fall over - there was never a need for a consideration of whether there was a brain involved (or eyes, or feet, or gloves, or wedding rings, or fingerprints...)It might be a common literary tool - doesn't mean you have a clue in how to use it correctly.
Gabriella,Of course - I also presumed that when you assert pejorative adjectives in relation to other posters, including Vlad, you also realised that it doesn't thereby actually make any of those assertions true. Glad we're on the same page with this.
Outy can more than look after himself, but you do realise that just pre-fixing your comments with pejorative adjectives like, “crass”, “blind faith”, “naďve”, “ poorly thought out”, “fervent”, “inappropriate” etc doesn’t thereby actually make any of those assertions true don't you?
Of course - I also presumed that when you assert pejorative adjectives in relation to other posters, including Vlad, you also realised that it doesn't thereby actually make any of those assertions true. Glad we're on the same page with this.
Gabriella,BHS - I don't want to make this personal to you, as there are a variety of posters on this board who make assertions. Having said that the above just seems to be another assertion on your part. You point out what you think he did...and you provide an explanation of why you think he did what you think he did.
The difference being that, by and large, when I point out what he did I also take the time to explain why.
BHS - I don't want to make this personal to you, as there are a variety of posters on this board who make assertions. Having said that the above just seems to be another assertion on your part. You point out what you think he did...and you provide an explanation of why you think he did what you think he did.
As to whether it's sometimes or by and large - fair enough, I don't intend to argue that assertion with you as I don't intend to count your posts or produce some kind of evidence to arrive at an informed conclusion one way or the other.
Qq, is there a poster on the board who doesn't make assertions?In my opinion, no.
In my opinion, no.
I would think it would be difficult/ impossible to not assert when many of these discussions involve using terms like "good" or "bad" or "harm" or in relation to what we think we know or what is true. I was surprised that BHS asked the question about whether I thought my assertions were true.
Qq, is there a poster on the board who doesn't make assertions?
NS,Doubly Deluded.
Probably not, but I do see a difference between using pejorative prefixes with no further comment as if the claim was thereby established and also taking the time to explain why the comment is wrong, dishonest, whatever. Thus on the "Searching for God" thread Vlad has fallen over by claiming the simulated universe conjecture and theology to be identical, and I've told him not only that he's wrong but also why he's wrong about that.
Doubly Deluded.
Only in you head Vladdo, only in your head...Look do I have to go through it again.
Se the "Searching for God" discussion for the explanation of why the SU conjecture and theism are not "identical" as you claimed.
Look do I have to go through it again.
SUsaysconjectures simulator has created a universe of which it is independent of and outside. Theologysaysasserts as fact God has createdathe universe of which it is independent of and outside.
It is the two ideas which are identical.
In other words which one is not theological.
Show your working.
Vlad,The sound of barrels being scraped augmented by the greatly amplified sound of James last and his barrel scraping orchestra playing Roll out the barrel from their hit album Swinging scraping barrels vol 5 in quadrophonic with the speakers propped up on barrels.
Corrected it for you.
The sound of barrels being scraped augmented by greatly amplified sound of James last and his barrel scraping orchestra playing Rollout the barrel from there hit album Swinging scraping barrels vol 5 in quadrophonic with the speakers propped up on barrels.
Vlad,I put two identical statements and you altered them to make them unequal in order to show they were not identical. You've rather rather made an argument in my favour haven't you Hillside. That's another fine fucking mess you've gotten yourself into.
So no actual attempt at a counter-argument then.
Oh well.
I put two identical statements and you altered them to make them unequal in order to show they were not identical.
You've rather rather made an argument in my favour haven't you Hillside. That's another fine fucking mess you've gotten yourself into.
Vlad,
Corrected actually – otherwise you may as well just have typed, ”apples and oranges are identical”. Theism has a different status (asserted fact) from SU (conjecture) and it piles all sorts of additional claims on top that SU doesn’t entail. They’re fundamentally different.
Re-defining theism so it’s closer to deism to make a point (which still fails by the way) is just dishonest of you.
Mind you, if you want to start a new type of theism in which the claims are only conjectures, the “creator” need only do the initial creating but nothing more etc by all means give it a go.
Er no (see above), and (as ever) the “fucking mess” is entirely yours. Deal with it.
No new theology from me Hillside just standard stuff that's been out from before Descartes. Nick Bostrom, and NDG Tyson were a twinkle in their old men's trousers.
Ok we could go with your crass generalisations.
On the other hand that would mean ignoring the evidence that various people have spent many years studying the history of the period and the etymology of words in their original language as used in religious texts.
That your blind faith in your beliefs require you to dismiss their research doesn't surprise me.
I don't see anything surprising about people having different opinions on history or custom after a period of study, but what I find surprising is your naive assumption that every person talking about scripture has actually spent any time studying the history or etymology before forming an opinion.
If that's what you really believe then I have this bridge I would like to sell you.
You are absolutely right that there are many people who claim to be scholars or claim to know what is correct but who only interpret religion or ethics or morals or laws to serve their particular agenda.
Much as I would advise anyone trying to buy a bridge or trying to join an army to kill for their country, it makes sense that theists should think about the motives of every politician, intelligence agency operative, ill-informed person or con artist who crosses their path rather than be influenced to make decisions that could hurt other people.
I think you are not explaining your poorly thought out metaphor about the two hands of religion.
If you applied your poorly thought out, fervent metaphor to other concepts you would end up with you, as a man, being a veneer of respectability that masculinity waves with one hand to hide behind whilst the other carries out mass shootings in Vegas and subjugates women.
So to use your words - what about men who don't commit mass murder and subjugate? They're an example of the sort of apparently harmless innocuous situations that allow more immediately harmful ideas to survive.
Don't worry - I'm not holding my breath that you will see how inappropriate your metaphor was, because you are unlikely to permit anything to contradict your beliefs or blind faith about the evils of religion, because you can't face the world without clinging onto this belief of yours.
It might be a common literary tool - doesn't mean you have a clue in how to use it correctly.
Personally, I don't want to take it out because I find it interesting to discuss what people think they know or what they think is right or good or bad. I interact with lots of different people and they hold very diverse views on many topics and I find it interesting to try and understand their views even if their world view or perspective on a topic is not one I want to adopt.
If you take out what we think we know, which includes what we think by implication, and what is true, there doesn't seem to be much left?
Vlad,Hillside You cannot escape an intelligent creator outside of the universe it creates in SU conjecture. Intelligent Creators of that type are the stuff of theism and Deism but are argued against in atheism and naturalism.
You think theism that deals only in conjectures awaiting investigation, a god who only needed to wind up the clock but not to show any interest after that etc is still theism rather than deism?
Well that’s different.
Just so we know, the next time you refer to theism could you also let us know whether you mean "old" theism or "Vlad's new revised version of theism" please?
Ta.
NS,In relation to the comments I made to Outrider, I think I did explain why his generalisations showed a lack of intelligence, were naive and inappropriate etc. You can choose not to accept those explanations and make assertions abut my posts - but then we're back to something I've mentioned before on here - that some posters will challenge posts because they are written in a different way from how they prefer to write them and therefore they make unwarranted assumptions about the poster's meaning or intention.
Probably not, but I do see a difference between using pejorative prefixes with no further comment as if the claim was thereby established and also taking the time to explain why the comment is wrong, dishonest, whatever. Thus on the "Searching for God" thread Vlad has fallen over by claiming the simulated universe conjecture and theology to be identical, and I've told him not only that he's wrong but also why he's wrong about that.
I see that in a lot of your exchanges with Vlad - he is talking apples and you are talking orangesNot really apples; something spherical, certainly.
Not really apples; something spherical, certainly.
It doesn't surprise me, either. What surprises me is the conviction with which they claim that they have the right interpretation, the actual truth, despite there being nothing outside of the questionable books to support any of it. I don't think that everyone talking about scripture is an 'expert', I just think that if there's no consensus amongst the experts and no evidence to support any of it, being an expert at it doesn't amount to very much. Many Emperor's with different coloured no clothes on don't actually make the thing any more believable.I don't think anyone talking about religion is an 'expert' either, if by 'expert' you mean someone whose views are infallible or whose views you have to accept as right.
Is it a magic, invisible, intangible bridge that leads to salvation that I can have for free (but I have to give the cleaner ten per cent of my income for life and let him tell me I'm a bad person in the meantime)?If you think the bridge is magic and leads to salvation if you do charitable acts, give money to help people in need or share what you own to be helpful to the poor and needy - I don't see the problem.
But there's only one true Scotsman, right?In what sense? Are you suggesting there is a scholar who is infallible? That's not a belief I hold.
I think you're over-reaching with a throwaway metaphor that wasn't intended to be read as deeply as you're trying... now where have I come across that tendency before...A throwaway metaphor that seemed to say that religion is a special case that leads to terrorism and moreover that law-abiding theists allow theist terrorists to continue their criminal activities by providing a respectable face of religion rather than abandoning religion because some theists are terrorists. Rather than going for this convoluted assertion, the simpler explanation that is seen in many situations is that some people think criminal behaviour is justified to achieve certain political or religious goals. Or some people who hate others are capable of mass murder.
So because I rightly point out that some theists are terrorists whilst others aren't, you think I'm of the same ilk as a recent mass-shooter? You think I subjugate women, when this started out because I objected to the unnecessary segregation of a crowd based on their sex?The segregation thread is on the Muslim board - I wasn't referring to it on this thread. What you pointed out was a particular link between theists who are terrorists and those who aren't based on them both identifying as religious - the two hands metaphor imply they belong to the same body and are controlled by one brain.
And there we go with the 'well you're just as bad as we are' attempt at an argument. There's no blind faith here - I might even be wrong, it's a possibility, but it's a chain of reason from the phenomena to a conclusion, not from 'but magic sky man says' to 'therefore segregation and pipe bombs'.I am not attempting an argument - I am making an observation about humans holding certain beliefs or views that are based on their limited experiences and knowledge and values that do not incorporate a religious story.
Hillside You cannot escape an intelligent creator outside of the universe it creates in SU conjecture.
Intelligent Creators of that type are the stuff of theism and Deism but are argued against in atheism and naturalism.
There is therefore nothing in SU to help atheism or any argument which states that theism cannot be a candidate for SU.
Also…
…if one can argue for a creator who is independent of the universe it creates one cannot argue that a god or gods cannot have those characteristics since that is special pleading.
Happy to put you straight.
I don't think anyone talking about religion is an 'expert' either, if by 'expert' you mean someone whose views are infallible or whose views you have to accept as right.
I don't generalise the way you do about religion or religious people claiming to be experts because I have come across many people who are seen as Islamic scholars who do not claim conviction or certainty about their interpretations and make it clear they are just giving their opinion and their 'expertise' merely consists of breaking down why they hold the opinion that they do using etymology, history, knowledge of nomad Arab culture in the 7th century, traditions etc but do not claim to "know" for certain because that would be impossible.
I agree there are people who do claim certainty. It's up to theists to not unquestioningly follow the opinions of such people, depending on the consequences of following those opinions.
That there are some people among theists who accept what they are told is not unique to theists, otherwise there would not be so many non-religious victims of financial scams and fraud.
If you think the bridge is magic and leads to salvation if you do charitable acts, give money to help people in need or share what you own to be helpful to the poor and needy - I don't see the problem.
A throwaway metaphor that seemed to say that religion is a special case that leads to terrorism and moreover that law-abiding theists allow theist terrorists to continue their criminal activities by providing a respectable face of religion rather than abandoning religion because some theists are terrorists.
Rather than going for this convoluted assertion, the simpler explanation that is seen in many situations is that some people think criminal behaviour is justified to achieve certain political or religious goals. Or some people who hate others are capable of mass murder.
The segregation thread is on the Muslim board - I wasn't referring to it on this thread. What you pointed out was a particular link between theists who are terrorists and those who aren't based on them both identifying as religious - the two hands metaphor imply they belong to the same body and are controlled by one brain.
What I pointed out in response was that your view is as irrational as linking an abusive man or a mass murdering man with a man who doesn't abuse women or commit mass murder, simply because they both identify as, or are identified as, masculine.
I am not attempting an argument - I am making an observation about humans holding certain beliefs or views that are based on their limited experiences and knowledge and values that do not incorporate a religious story.
If you look on the Segregation thread I have given my reasons for supporting segregation in certain circumstances rather than banning it. The 'magic sky man' did not feature in my explanation so you are being dishonest in the way you are presenting a view you disagree with.
No-one suggests that you would need to ‘escape” that part of the SU conjecture.A lot here which is non sequitur to any argument about SU vis the differences between Theism and Deism or whether a theistic or deistic God is presented as a hypothetical or as an assertion.
First, you just elided theism with deism there. That’s cheating.
Second, divine “creators” aren’t argued against, but rather arguments attempted for them are argued against (ie, falsified) by atheism.
Third, you conflated a coherent proposition (the creator of SU about which nothing more need be said) with the “God” of theism that’s incoherent because of the contradictions inherent in its description.
Fourh, you ignored the difference between a conjecture (SU) and a claim of fact (theism).
Fifth, you ignored the difference between a “creator” about which nothing need be said (SU) and a creator about a great deal more has to be said (theism).
Sixth, you ignored the fact that SU requires only a localised creator of the universe we appear to observe, whereas theism requires a creator of everything.
Seventh therefore, you ignored the difference between a necessary condition and sufficient conditions. "A creator" is necessary and sufficient for SU; "a creator" (or rather the creator) is necessary but not sufficient for theism.
Eighth…
…well, surely you get the idea by now that they the SU conjecture and theism are not “identical” as you claimed at all.
The best you could possibly have would be to say that SU isn’t incompatible with theism, though nor is it incompatible with leprechaunism, Morris dancing or topiarism. Why you think that would be helpful to you though is anyone’s guess.
“Atheism” doesn’t need to be “helped”. Rather all that’s needed is for claims made by theists to be falsified – that SU and theism are “identical” for example (see above).
You can’t have an “also” when your prior argument has collapsed. See above.
Wrong again. First, the SU idea is just a conjecture – you can’t argue for or against it in any terms other than it being a possibility.
Second, SU requires only a creator of a universe; theism on the other hand asserts the creator of the universe.
That is, there’s no special pleading here because the two positions are fundamentally different.
Likewise.
A lot here which is non sequitur to any argument about SU…
…vis the differences between Theism and Deism or whether a theistic or deistic God is presented as a hypothetical or as an assertion.
We can take these up on separate threads and I would be happy to do so.
Vlad,
That’s not what non sequitur means. If you’re trying to say something like “not relevant” though, then you’d be wrong in any case – it’s precisely relevant because it explains the fundamental differences between SU and theism, thereby falsifying your claim that they are “identical”.
These (and other) differences are what detonate your claim of “identical”. If I was in a generous mood I’d say the most you could possibly argue is that each proposition has the word “creator” in it, albeit of very different necessary types (ie, parochial vs universal) but after that they head off in different directions entirely.
Knock yourself out. You would though actually have to engage with the arguments rather than just repeat “creator” over and over.
I think I've obviously failed to make the point strongly enough - I'm not sure how you can be an 'expert' on something when there's not enough information to form a coherent picture.A coherent picture of what? I do wish you would finish your sentences or be a bit less vague.
I generalise at times about religious people because sometime the point isn't about an individual claim or a particular viewpoint, sometimes it's just about 'religion'. There are differences of specific claims and styles and histories within the religions, and within each religion there are differences of creed and custom and theology. Sometimes those differences are irrelevant to the point, which is about religion: we have the word because it's a concept that covers all of those subsets.Yes I get it - you have an irrational phobia about religion.
That's your take on religion; for them, that certainty is sometimes a deliberate choice on their part - they feel they have to be absolutely convinced - and sometimes it's a front to cover for their doubts, I suspect.In which case it makes sense to stop generalising about all theists based on the behaviour of some theists.
The difference with a fraud or a scam is that, in most instance, you're actually given some sort of reason to think that there's some truth to the claims.I disagree - in lots of cases of fraud and scams people are given very flimsy reasons and no evidence other than someone telling them a story they they would like to believe to be true. So it is not some particular phenomenon for some theists to believe in other people's certainties.
You mean apart from the fact that there's no bridge, no need for salvation? Be charitable, by all means, give money to the needy and the poor, but do it because it's a good thing to do, do it out of sympathy for your fellow man, don't do it to appease a mythic tyrant and secure a non-existent afterlife.I'm still not seeing a problem. The end result is charity work, which is not harmful. If you find the charity work of lesser value because it involves belief in an afterlife - your opinion is not my concern.
I'm not saying theists should abandon theism because other theists are terrorists, I'm saying that theists should abandon theism because it's baseless. The problem with theists being theists if they're otherwise harmless is that they lend theism a respectability; as it's baseless, as there's no actual facts to challenge, no actual information to proffer, individual interpretations are equally as valid or invalid.Theists are theists because it works for them - so no it's not baseless - people tend to continue behaviours and beliefs that they perceive as improving their life in some way. Theists who behave respectably are treated with respect, as is their interpretation of their religion. If you have a problem with that, I think you are wasting your time trying to convince theists to abandon theism if theism works for them - there is no incentive to abandon theism. You might have more success trying to convert all the people who treat us with respect and respect our practices to adopt your view. Good luck.
Yet we see time and again that, because religion is predicated on the existence of an absolute authority, these people believe (in at least some instances) that what they do in the name of their religion is not a crime at all, or that temporal authority and punishment is some sort of religious scourging they have to go through to prove their worthiness. They're demented, yes, but the specifics of their belief can't be challenged, because there are no 'facts' with which to challenge them, and the nature of religion can only be challenged if you're going to challenge all of it.Again you seem to be arguing that religion is a special case. Even with a law and a judicial system people believe in some instances that what they do in the name of their particular non-religious cause is not a crime at all, or that temporal authority and punishment is some sort of badge of honour to prove their commitment and worthiness. Where they consider the laws unjust, they are celebrated for not submitting to authority.
Yes. And that brain is blindly fumbling in the absence of any actual information, leaving the hands to wander where they will and do what feels right at the time.That's why I thought your metaphor was incorrect. There is not one brain. There are individual brains - and they all reason morals differently when arriving at what they think is a good or bad act. You can assert that theism is a special case all you want - you may even be really, really convinced in the truth of your assertions - but I see no evidence or reason to adopt your beliefs.
Except that we can prove if someone's a man, we can run tests and examine and inspect and determine if something is an inevitable consequence of biological sex. We can also investigate gender orientation, and make cultural studies to see what being 'masculine' in a particular culture means; we look at religion and there are no facts, there is nothing to inspect, there are some old opinions which have been elevated to sacred status, and innumerable divergent opinions about them and their meaning.I am not talking about biological sex. Masculinity is a cultural construct. Different people have different interpretations of what being masculine means to them. What's the objective truth of masculinity in all of this.
If you make observations in response to someone else's observations, making contrary points line by line, you're making an argument, even if it wasn't your intention.Ok sure - we'll call exchanging observations, assertions and beliefs making arguments. What was the point you were trying to make by giving the argument a special name. Are you about to go through my posts and name every observation and assertion I make - that could get a little boring in place of an actual observation or assertion in response to the point made in my observation or assertion.
I'm accepting of the fact that there are times when separating the sexes is appropriate: the instance that started that thread was not one of those circumstances, and it was entirely about a religious interpretation.We already finished discussing this on that thread so no point continuing it on here. I disagree with where you think it inappropriate for the reasons I stated on that thread.
Not so. SU proposes an intelligent creator independent of the universe it creates. Theism proposes an intelligent creator independent of the universe it creates.
These statements are identical.
There is no fundamental difference between them because the fundamentals of SU are theistic propositions.
And you cannot argue for those fundamentals for one entity and then deny them.
Therefore your argument is, as Bertrand Russell might have put it, fucked,it's fucked,it's fuckety fuckety fucked.
In 2008 an international collaboration of scientists created what was then determined to be the roundest object in the world: http://tinyurl.com/n9aaxef
It has lost the crown to the most circular thing in the world:
Take that, sciencey scientismist scienceists!
How does the created determine the creator?
You my friend will live and die and what will your life be rated or valued at?
Is there a purpose to your life and will your reasoning live on after you die?
The Word of God... of all the books in the world which book has lasted and is still published among men the best seller, ever in the History of Man? Was it not said that if everything Christ did in the three years he ministered was written down the amount of books would be?
King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
The bible has Christ saying: Heaven and earth may pass away but my words will never pass. Today, 2,000 years on his words still with us. Lot's of people whether religious or not know about his words. They know them off by heart and the words of God in the OT. But no one pays attention to the scientist that they can remember the words of their teachings off by heart in such vast numbers and more scientist names have been forgotten than are remembered.
Your comments will be long forgotten when this board ceases to exist and when indeed the people posting here also cast of their earthly coil. But the words of God and Christ go on. Science never really gives an answer does it to the creation or existence of the world. Could it be because everything begins and ends with God?
At the end of the day what do you take away from science that actually changes anything in the process of your life?
ZERO! Believers in Gods word have something which makes a difference now and gives a greater hope after death.
Sometimes hearing words and knowing the person who speaks them makes all the difference.
Vlad,There has been no redefinition Hillside.
And one of them is untrue. Not sure why you keep ignoring the arguments that undo you, but if you’re not actively lying now you’re awful close to it.
For the final time: theism asserts (“not proposes”) the (not “a”) intelligent creator independent of the universe as a whole (not just the one a particular creator happens to create). Just re-defining it to look the same SU is dishonest.
A conjecture about a creator of a universe are the necessary and sufficient conditions for SU; they're not though necessary and sufficient for theism.
I really don’t know how to explain this in simpler terms for you.
Of course there is – see above.
Of course you can – see above.
No, yours is – see above.
Perhaps if you worked out the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" it would help prevent you falling off this same cliff again in future?
Sassy,
But again, what makes you think they are “truths” in any objective sense rather than strongly held personal opinions?
You have experienced certain events. “God” as a causal explanation for them is a narrative you find persuasive, but there are others. Why then, if not for “faith”, do you opt for the former and dismiss out of hand the latter?
That’s called circular reasoning: “I know a book is true because that book says it’s true” etc.
No - see above. For that to be true you’d have to show that there is a “God”, that he had made “promises”, that those promises had been recorded accurately in a book, and that they had been “kept” rather than naturalistic explanations being the real ones.That’s a lot of “ifs”.
No – I would just find it impossible to abandon reason in favour of guessing is all.
So you say, but the question rather is about how these Christians you cite know they have found truths rather than made mistakes in their thinking. "I know that my faith is correct because my faith is correct" doesn't help you at all. What in other words makes their faith that there is a “God” not blind?
There has been no redefinition Hillside.
The theological ''sufficiency'' of that statement is irrelevant to whether it is a theological statement. More red herring served than Rick Stein's of Padstow.
Sass The greatest proof that God exists and always will whatever you believe that existence to be, is that no one has managed to do away with the belief.Ah, negative proof fallacy, there you are - how's things today?
So in other words no proof at all! ::)
Ah, negative proof fallacy, there you are - how's things today?Been utterly fabulous, me and incredulity got together for a big sesh with George Clooney, the Duchess of Cambridge and the fattest pig in the world at The Sagrada Familia, and we danced tributes to Rev Richard Coles in Strictly. I do love incredulity but he kept bringing down the vibe by saying it wasn't happening because he just couldn't believe it, so I told him as with everyone else, prove it doesn't.
A coherent picture of what? I do wish you would finish your sentences or be a bit less vague.
Ok, you're free to dismiss whoever you want as not being an expert. I disagree with you - because as I explained I think it's possible for a person to be an expert on Arab dialects, etymology, history, traditional stories and therefore is able to explain their particular translation and interpretation of an Arabic text. There may well be disagreement - as other experts may think a particular tradition is given undue emphasis or may disagree with the etymology or historical narrative.
Yes I get it - you have an irrational phobia about religion.
In which case it makes sense to stop generalising about all theists based on the behaviour of some theists.
I disagree - in lots of cases of fraud and scams people are given very flimsy reasons and no evidence other than someone telling them a story they they would like to believe to be true.
I'm still not seeing a problem. The end result is charity work, which is not harmful. If you find the charity work of lesser value because it involves belief in an afterlife - your opinion is not my concern.
No one knows or can predict the future - as far as I'm concerned it's not very different to working to secure a future that you believe or hope for but cannot guarantee because life is unpredictable and you or your spouse could get a debilitating illness, your spouse could cheat on you, any manner of unpredictable events could happen.
Theists are theists because it works for them - so no it's not baseless - people tend to continue behaviours and beliefs that they perceive as improving their life in some way.
Theists who behave respectably are treated with respect, as is their interpretation of their religion.
If you have a problem with that, I think you are wasting your time trying to convince theists to abandon theism if theism works for them - there is no incentive to abandon theism.
That's pretty much a non-starter - the way to convince people of the failures of religion is with logic, reason and evidence, and if they were the sort of people that would be influenced by those they wouldn't be theists in the first place. The point is to keep making the point publicly and clearly so that more and more impressionable youngsters grow up in a world where there are no sacred cows, where the holy is ridiculed, where the obvious nudity of the Emperor is printed in the headlines every day. This is the long game.
O.
I don't think young people need any assistance in the art of ridicule of the religious.
We live in an overwhelmingly secular society.
Your picture of a non religious minority oppressed by the holy is one gleaned from antitheist rant sites from across the pond.
I have sympathy for American atheists who face a red neck religiousariat but the spectacle of yourself trying to emulate atheist action is rather sad and lacks perspective.
I confess to never hearing New atheist wankfodder described thus.
You mean the primary cultural influence of the English-speaking world...
I confess to never hearing New atheist wankfodder described thus.
And yet we're the nation (along with Saudi Arabia, I believe?) that still has a reserved part of the government for the state religious institution... We're winning, I'd agree, but the battle's not over yet.Conflation of church establishment and political representation and religious belief noted.
No, the US, dear. Do try to keep up.Stealth religion.
By the way, did you ever establish anywhere here exactly what it is that you think is 'New' in 'New' atheism?
O.
Of god, or what god wants, or why god wants it, or of any of the moral exhortations or prohibitions of scripture.And as I pointed out there are lots of religious scholars who don't claim to be experts on anything more than traditions, etymology and history and therefore provide a context and translation of texts that are broadly the same. Everything else they are happy to tell you is just their considered opinion based on the above, and moreover various Islamic scholars set out the differing opinions of other scholars rather than just their own opinions. Since most religious people are not seeking answers as to whether they should kill someone or not, this works pretty well for them. Obviously the minority of scholars who want you to kill people to further a political cause are not going to tell you, "By the way, there are actually contrary opinions from other mainstream schools of thought that say it is haram for you to carry out this terrorist attack, so you know, it's up to you what you want to do."
And yet these people that have that expertise disagree fundamentally on what it means. With other texts you get subtle distinctions, differences of emphasis or detail, but you don't get the wholesale divergence that you do with scripture.
How many terrorist incidents in, say, London (where I regularly travel for work) does it take before my concern becomes rational? How many recidivist pronouncements from the established church do I have to suffer before my distaste for religious influence becomes justified? How many accounts of institutional misogyny, homophobia and racism is enough to consider the enterprise perhaps a little passé?
Perhaps you should actually read what I've read, rather than what you want me to have said. I'm not generalising about all theists based on the behaviour of some, I'm pointing out that there isn't a reliable argument against a particular incarnation of religious belief, so in order to remove the brake on civilisation that the worse elements represents it's necessary to highlight the shortcomings of the whole edifice.Yes, beliefs - whether moral or political or religious or philosophical - don't have a reliable argument against particular incarnations. For me that's not a problem - I don't crave certainty and can cope with differing beliefs that may impact on my life. For you it clearly is a problem. Again that is your issue you to deal with. If it helps you to cope with uncertainty around beliefs by targeting theists to argue with and try to convince them that they should also want certainty like you - I don't have a problem with that. Your arguments are unconvincing but much like Alan's proselytising - it's pretty harmless and whatever works for you.
Stories that could be true, though, rather than one that's been pretty universally demonstrated to hold less water than a desert-bound collendar.Leaving aside that the theist concept clearly holds little merit for you, personal experience demonstrates to me that the religion I practice works for me. Having been an atheist and now a theist, I prefer the experiences I have now that I have added a belief in God, and understandably I have no incentive to give up those experiences just because some atheists find them ridiculous.
You get charity work from any number of cultural groups, motivations and associations. How many horticulture-motivated suicide bombers have you heard about?
Tell that to the guy that's predicting the end of the world based on his (expert?) interpretation of scripture. Yes, bad things happen, people get debilitating illnesses... and religious conservatives agitate against research for cures because of nonsense concepts like 'souls' and 'spirit' and 'god's will'.
It is baseless. It's understandable, they have a motivation, but that's not a rationale that supports the notion, it's just an excuse for why they don't pay attention to the fact that there's no rationale.
Yes, and no. I try to be broadly respectful of them, but I don't have to respect any interpretation of religion when the whole thing is such palpable nonsense.
That's pretty much a non-starter - the way to convince people of the failures of religion is with logic, reason and evidence, and if they were the sort of people that would be influenced by those they wouldn't be theists in the first place. The point is to keep making the point publicly and clearly so that more and more impressionable youngsters grow up in a world where there are no sacred cows, where the holy is ridiculed, where the obvious nudity of the Emperor is printed in the headlines every day. This is the long game.
O.
Conflation of church establishment and political representation and religious belief noted.
There remain a lot of Christians and other faith persons who do not see establishment as doctrinal.
Those who might retain a desire for representation in the highest halls may have increased by those nervous of a growing aggressive humanism, which stretches from a grumpy Dawkinsian Alf Garnettism to those who actively applaud banning the religious from public forum vis your response to the Baliol issue, which is beginning to impinge.
Of course the Bishops are there because at some point even the moneyed and the privileged saw the value of having a spiritual and moral pair of eyes, which given the numbers is a voice in the wilderness.
To try to pass that of as a theocracy is dishonest.
You suggested that we were 'overwhelmingly secular' in a political/social/cultural context, and I countered that with the observation we have an established religion and reserved seats in the parliament for the established religion. There's no conflation there at all.
Which does not undermine that established nature in the slightest.
There is no prohibition on the religious being represented in parliament - I'm reasonably confident that the representation of Christianity in both houses probably exceeds its representation in the general public. Why should religion be a special case that gets its normal distributed representation AND additional reserved seats?
As to the idea that I wish to see the religious - people or activity, were you meaning? - banned from public view, I advocate no such thing. I don't believe that Christianity at Baliol should be treated any differently to the other religions, and they were not banned, their involvement was tempered to suit the potential audience. I don't advocate banning religion, I advocate putting the rational viewpoint out there so that it dies out. Information as inoculation, if you will.
No, the Bishops are there because at one point they were amongst the monied and privileged. Even if they were once seen as a 'spiritual and moral' pair of eyes, we've moved beyond that rather antiquated view of things.
Wasn't aware that I had. There are two nations which have reserved space in the executive for religious figures, and we're one of them. Whether you think that's at least partially a theocracy or not is a matter of opinion, I wouldn't go that far, but I do think it's representative of the fact that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, still have an excessive voice in the public sphere in this country.
O.
Your last matter is very much a matter of taste.
Wasn't aware that I had. There are two nations which have reserved space in the executive for religious figures, and we're one of them. Whether you think that's at least partially a theocracy or not is a matter of opinion, I wouldn't go that far, but I do think it's representative of the fact that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, still have an excessive voice in the public sphere in this country.
O.
As to the idea that I wish to see the religious - people or activity, were you meaning? - banned from public view, I advocate no such thing.Vlad regularly asserts that some people advocate this very such thing*.
... clearly there are religious people who are able to think for themselvesIf that was actually the case they wouldn't be religious.
Vlad regularly asserts that some people advocate this very such thing*.Ok hands up for removal of religion for schools, removal of religious charities, removal of religious organisations showing cinema adverts, the banning of proselytization. Restricting access of religious books from people under 18, religious advertising, removal of religion from universities, removal of religion from politics, banning of prayers in public, the banning of religious symbols in public.
Try this: ask him to be specific. Ask him to name names. Ask him to keep his hands still and drop the "some people" and specify "these people". Ask him to provide the evidence for anybody advocating this.
Good luck, big O.
* ETA: Indeed, I see that he's just done so yet again.
If that was actually the case they wouldn't be religious.You're wrong about that.
If that was actually the case they wouldn't be religious.A whiff of the No True Scotsman here. Kant seemed to think for himself and was religious. So we are to conclude that he wasn't thinking got himself because you have decided this?
The point is to keep making the point publicly and clearly so that more and more impressionable youngsters grow up in a world where there are no sacred cows, where the holy is ridiculed,Wouldn't that involve replacing people like Ricky Gervais and Marcus Brigstocke with comedians?
You're wrong about that.Don't say "You're welcome" as I didn't thank you for anything; demonstrate that I'm wrong.
You're welcome.
A whiff of the No True Scotsman here. Kant seemed to think for himself and was religious. So we are to conclude that he wasn't thinking got himself because you have decided this?Doublethink.
Don't say "You're welcome" as I didn't thank you for anything; demonstrate that I'm wrong.I dismissed your assertion.
I dismissed your assertion.With nary a scrap of reasoning. But eh, it's expected.
With nary a scrap of reasoning. But eh, it's expected.I don't need to produce reasons to dismiss your assertion. That you think I do need to counter your assertion with reasons is your error. Now that I have pointed this out to you - you're welcome.
I don't need to produce reasons to dismiss your assertion. That you think I do need to counter your assertion with reasons is your error.In which case clearly you have no expectation that your blessedly irregular eructations need be taken seriously. Which is just as well.
Don't say "You're welcome" as I didn't thank you for anything; demonstrate that I'm wrong.that would be you offering a run out for old NPF.
that would be you offering a run out for old NPF.That seems to be the exclusive property of the religionists: far be it from me to poach on their preserves.
In which case clearly you have no expectation that your blessedly irregular eructations need be taken seriously. Which is just as well.And you failing to justify your assertion is you having no expectation that your tedious pronouncements need to be taken seriously. Just as well
Doublethink.
Proficiency - even frank and outright genius - in one area doesn't preclude blithering idiocy in another. Case in point: Francis Collins, quondam director of the Human Genome Project and therefore somebody we can reasonably expect to know something of the scientific method, yet someone who, when it comes to what he regards as the rationale behind his Christian beliefs, acts like someone who has just received a traumatic brain injury. See The Language of God for details, where the three channels of a frozen waterfall confirms Collins's prior belief in the Trinity.
In fact here you can insert the name of any scientist who professes supernatural beliefs: Ken Miller, Karl Giberson*, take your pick. 9 to 5 naturalists and Sunday morning supernaturalists to a man.
*This is someone who in all seriousness wrote: "As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails."
A long version of the No True Scotsman is still a fallacy.It would be, if it was. But it seems you've adopted Gabriella's methodology for grappling with argumentation, i.e. don't.
And you failing to justify your assertion is you having no expectation that your tedious pronouncements need to be taken seriously. Just as well#397 is the justification.AlanShaker.
It would be, if it was. But it seems you've adopted Gabriella's methodology for grappling with argumentation, i.e. don't.You are defining those who are religious as not thinking for themselves. This is a classic No True Scotsman. It's a blanket extra definition inserted by you. You aren't providing 'argumentation', merely assertion with a leavening of fallacies.
That seems to be the exclusive property of the religionists: far be it from me to poach on their preserves.Clearly not since you just tried to assert something, provided no evidence or justification, and then when challenged tried a sneaky "prove me wrong" counter-challenge that Sassy would have been proud of.
You are defining those who are religious as not thinking for themselves.
Clearly not since you just tried to assert something, provided no evidence or justificationExcept I have.
#397 is the justification.
The existence of anyone who thinks that an ancient text comprised of the maunderings of people who didn't know where the sun went at night is the last word in guidance for life is the justification.
If my pronouncements are as tedious as you assert, the remedy is simple: ignore them.
That's right, and I've adduced evidence to that end. Hence your assertion of fallacy is misplaced.No, you haven't adduced evidence. You put in a quote and then generalized about every religious person, and indeed all of Collins thought from a paragraph, while dressing up with some pretty words. Putting spray tan on a fallacy doesn't reduce it being a fallacy.
No, you haven't adduced evidence. You put in a quote and then generalized about every religious person, and indeed all of Collins thought from a paragraphI'm not quoting his wretched tome in its entirety, if that's what you were expecting.
Put out by criticism of religion and the religious as you no doubt are due to wee white haired old mammy, I suspect that you'll just have to have fun working this one out for yourself.You really want to try a facile and badly expressed ad hominem? This must be where I shout house on fallacy bingo today from your posts.
I'm not quoting his wretched tome in its entirety, if that's what you were expecting.And Strawman! With this fallacy,you are spoiling us.
You really want to try a facile and badly expressed ad hominem? This must be where I shout house on fallacy bingo today from your posts.Why ever would I stop you in whatever roasts your particular potatoes? It'll be of no more relevance or point than anything else you've offered thus far.
Why ever would I stop you in whatever roasts your particular potatoes? It'll be of no more relevance or point than anything else you've offered thus far.he asserted.
I don't think young people need any assistance in the art of ridicule of the religious We live in an overwhelmingly secular society. Your picture of a non religious minority oppressed by the holy is one gleaned from antitheist rant sites from across the pond. I have sympathy for American atheists who face a red neck religiousariat but the spectacle of yourself trying to emulate atheist action is rather sad and lacks perspective.
Except I have.No you haven't.
Perhaps try reading a smidgen faster?
But with capitals in the right places.Good grammar doesn't make good argument, or avoid your continual use of fallacieS (sic)
Good grammar doesn't make good argument, or avoid your continual use of fallacieS (sic)He asserted this time round.
#397 is the justification.I would but I'm thinking of the long game and therefore need to log on to dismiss your tedious pronouncements and assertions.
The existence of anyone who thinks that an ancient text comprised of the maunderings of people who didn't know where the sun went at night is the last word in guidance for life is the justification.
If my pronouncements are as tedious as you assert, the remedy is simple: ignore them.
He asserted this time round.You think it's an assertion that grammar doth not maketh the argument? Really? So you want to go down the route of criticising a lack of a capital as some how getting you out of your continual use of fallacies? Oh and just for the record there is a good argument grammatically that it wasn't about the lack of capital but either a semi colon or comma that would have been the problem.
Anyway do you want to actually make a case that no religious person thinks for themselves or just continue with your fallacies and grammatical diversions?I'm still awaiting evidence of one doing so to prove my thesis wrong at least to the tune of one, but so far nothing doing.
I'm still awaiting evidence of one doing so to prove my thesis wrong at least to the tune of one, but so far nothing doing.NPF
"There are plenty of religious people who are no more and no less misogynistic or homophobic than atheists...
...so clearly there are religious people who are able to think for themselves...
...and interpret their scriptures in a way that is compatible with cultural changes."
BBQ.Aw how cute. Trying to ignore that you know that you were using the Negative Proof Fallacy in its shorthand because you have no answer to your use of it. Or in its shorter version, FFS!
I'm still awaiting evidence of one doing so to prove my thesis wrong at least to the tune of one, but so far nothing doing.Your thesis consists of you arbitrarily defining "thinking for yourself" as not being a theist, without providing evidence or justification, therefore it's easily dismissed.
Your thesis consists of you arbitrarily defining "thinking for yourself" as not being a theist, without providing evidence or justification, therefore it's easily dismissed.If you think it's arbitrary, however long your forum profile states you've been here, you can't have read much.
Or ITV.Evasion by TLA.
Wouldn't that involve replacing people like Ricky Gervais and Marcus Brigstocke with comedians?
If you think it's arbitrary, however long your forum profile states you've been here, you can't have read much.This reads as my assertion is right because I asserted it, so another fallacy you have used. Are you doing this for a bet?
Gabriella,You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?
But isn't the point that, first, when those people think a "holy" text mandates those behaviours they have one more reason than atheists to behave that way and, second, when they're convinced that "faith" is an inerrant means of validating truths there's no possibility of persuading them otherwise?
Clearly, though again how would that be compatible with the status of "faith" when they're thinking about religious matters specifically? Doesn't faith remove (or at least significantly reduce) the ability to think for yourself when it's faith that underpins the validity of the belief?
But then what's the point of "scripture" rather than, say, an early and crude attempt at moral philosophy? If scripture is supposed to be the revealed thoughts of a necessarily correct god, what use is it if you can just re-interpret it as societal norms change?
I think you mean KLM.Are you saying you are in Amsterdam and you have partaken of fallacy tobaccy?
Your thesis consists of you arbitrarily defining "thinking for yourself" as not being a theist, without providing evidence or justification, therefore it's easily dismissed.
If you think it's arbitrary, however long your forum profile states you've been here, you can't have read much.Ok. If you think all theists can't think for themselves then you can't have read much.
You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?
You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?Which in no way addresses bluey's prior question:
If scripture is supposed to be the revealed thoughts of a necessarily correct god, what use is it if you can just re-interpret it as societal norms change?
Ok. If you think all theists can't think for themselves then you can't have read much.Actually I have - that's where the thesis comes from, to a large degree.
You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?
Gabriella,You'll have to ask Shaker what he meant by his assertion. I wouldn't hold your breath - he seems to be currently trying for a record number of fallacies in the shortest number of posts. Maybe when he's got his medal he'll elaborate to explain his assertion.
Was he suggesting the theists can't think at all – eg, they'd need "green side up" instructions when turf arrived – or just in respect of matters theological?
If it's only the latter, then I'd have some sympathy for that as atheism rests on identifying where the arguments of theists for their theism are wrong.
Gabriella,
Was he suggesting the theists can't think at all – eg, they'd need "green side up" instructions when turf arrived – or just in respect of matters theological?
If it's only the latter, then I'd have some sympathy for that as atheism rests on identifying where the arguments of theists for their theism are wrong.
Actually I have - that's where the thesis comes from, to a large degree.Is there a fallacy of dressing up an assertion in sparkly clothing and calling it an assertion? Argument by ornamentation? If not, well dine, you just invented a new fallacy.
Ok. If you think all theists can't think for themselves then you can't have read much.Theists may be thinking for themselves, but they are thinking from the standpoint of a faith belief, so are not working to find an objective fact somewhere.
Theists may be thinking for themselves, but they are thinking from the standpoint of a faith belief, so are not working to find an objective fact somewhere.Show that's an objective fact.
Humour is an aesthetic judgment, surely? I'm not a Gervais fan, myself, but I don't mind Marcus Bridgstocke. I'd rather Jim Jefferies, John Oliver or Tim Minchin, mind... horses for courses and all that.Apparently Jim Jefferies was due to do a gig but couldn't go on stage because he felt 'a little bit funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.
Gabriella,I'm not a Christian but I thought believing in the resurrection was based on reports of supposedly eye-witness testimony that Jesus died, his body was stuck in a cave behind a rock for a few days and then reappeared looking alive to several people? Some people thought about this improbable story and decided they believed it and added various themes and philosophies around it. Not really sure why you picked the resurrection - what point are you trying to make - because I'm not really seeing how people believing in the resurrection shows people not thinking for themselves. They are presumably thinking when they decide whether they are going to believe the story, despite its improbability.
You do know that many (most?) of them hold certain of their faith beliefs to be inerrantly correct because various gods told them so right? What happens if, say, you "re-interpret" the resurrection as only metaphorical?
Apparently Jim Jefferies was due to do a gig but couldn't go on stage because he felt 'a little bit funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.The let's get Vlad to do the 'little bit funny' line dance and sacrifice of forty virgins has worked! Huzzah! Huzzah! You can sleep tonight, my daughters.
You know that declaring this prevents further use of the phrase ''Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods? You do? great, I don't want to issue a reminder.
If it's only the latter, then I'd have some sympathy for that as atheism rests on identifying where the arguments of theists for their theism are wrong.
Actually I have - that's where the thesis comes from, to a large degree.You're not showing any evidence of this extensive reading. Your reading seems on par with your thesis.
The let's get Vlad to do the 'little bit funny' line dance and sacrifice of forty virgins has worked! Huzzah! Huzzah! You can sleep tonight, my daughters.shhhhhhh! I think this is all new to Outrider, the new atheist comic routine that is.
You're not showing any evidence of this extensive reading. Your reading seems on par with your thesis.The content of the reading, certainly.
I'm not a Christian but I thought believing in the resurrection was based on reports of supposedly eye-witness testimony that Jesus died, his body was stuck in a cave behind a rock for a few days and then reappeared looking alive to several people? Some people thought about this improbable story and decided they believed it and added various themes and philosophies around it. Not really sure why you picked the resurrection - what point are you trying to make - because I'm not really seeing how people believing in the resurrection shows people not thinking for themselves. They are presumably thinking when they decide whether they are going to believe the story, despite its improbability.
The content of the reading, certainly.Sure - keep it to yourself though. Wouldn't want to see even a smidgen of evidence to support your thesis on here.
Gabriella,What is a faith belief?
The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.
Sure - keep it to yourself though. Wouldn't want to see even a smidgen of evidence to support your thesis on here.Absolutely no need - I let the likes of you and "Crashes and" et hoc genus omne do it for me, while I crack on with Penny Dreadful and what have you.
Gabriella,
The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.
Apparently Jim Jefferies was due to do a gig but couldn't go on stage because he felt 'a little bit funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.
Gabriella,If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with or haven't thought about either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.
The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.
If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.Which has nothing to do with religion, obvs.
And do all religious people do that?
To be honest the idea of 'thinking for yourself' seems undefined and those making pontifications about it doing so from a position of not even understanding what they assert.
If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with or haven't thought about either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.
Are you assuming that all theists agree or disagree with something without thinking about it, trying the experience and continuing with it if the experience is beneficial, much like the way morals work about what is good or bad, right to wrong?
Is there a special definition of "thinking" that you are using here?
NS,
My knowledge of religions isn't encyclopaedic enough to know whether every one of them has a faith basis, but I'd have thought that most do. What then is "faith" for if not to fill the gap when the thinking runs out?
I'd have thought something like "consistent with logically cogent principles" would be fine for that purpose. If not for logic and reason, surely anything goes doesn't it - especially if it's wrapped in a comfort blanket called "faith".
So you know how some approx 2.5 billion people on the planet think in order to make your statement? Impressive! Obviously not as impressive as Shaker who knows how 5.5 billion (roughly) think but still good.
And then you beg the question of what thinking for yourself means by shipping in a conclusion that they have to agree with you on religion. Odd!
NS,
That's so far from what i said it's a Vladdism.
And so's that. What I "shipped in" was, but for reason, then there's no means to distinguish the truth of any faith claim from that of any other.
Gabriella,Assertions is your evidence of not thinking for yourself? Given the number of assertions made on here by atheists, that means no one thinks for themselves.
Whether something is "worth accepting" tells you nothing about whether it's true. The addition of "faith" to the mix bridges the gap from assertion to fact with no logic to take you there.
But instead he went to the US and got a syndicated show that's just been renewed for two further series...Is that MTV?.........Masochistic Television?
O.
Gabriella,Is this why you haven't settled the coming/going dilemma?
The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.
And do all religious people do that? To be honest the idea of 'thinking for yourself' seems undefined and those making pontifications about it doing so from a position of not even understanding what they assert.When some of the atheists here use thinking for yourself, this is what is happening:
#465
When some of the atheists here use thinking for yourself, this is what is happening:
thinking for yourself
Reasoning based on an assumed position; a position that needs no justification yet is assumed to be true, therefore makes deductions about opposing arguments (euphemistically called falsifications/rebuttals)
In what way? You were making a claim about most religious people. That's at least about 5 billion people so allowing even a Brexit majority the 2.5 billion is surely reasonable?
The second bit is you indulging in a No True Scotsman - if people don't agree with me they aren't reasonable
Assertions is your evidence of not thinking for yourself? Given the number of assertions made on here by atheists, that means no one thinks for themselves.
As for assertions to fact - are you suggesting that all the posters on here who make assertions don't really believe them to be true?
...apparently there's a difference.Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.
Could someone have a go at explaining what it might be please?
Thanks.
Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.You might find Occam's Razor useful here.
Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.Ah: now we're moving into the sphere of religion.
In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.That approach works correctly as logic intends when it is fallacious. Or you may be of an Alan Burns bent and regard logic as a subjective personal opinion akin to liking/not liking Marmite, of course.
Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly falseYou appear to have omitted to provide evidence for this assertion of falsity.
When some of the atheists here use thinking for yourself, this is what is happening:
thinking for yourself
Reasoning based on an assumed position; a position that needs no justification yet is assumed to be true, therefore makes deductions about opposing arguments (euphemistically called falsifications/rebuttals)
Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.
Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.
In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.
Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.
Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves
Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.
Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.
In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.
Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.
Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves
Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.
Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.
In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.
Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.
Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves
Theists/religionists that take up science seriously would also need two hats?
Perhaps a Deer Stalker for science and one of those conical type hats, with diagrams of stars, planets and mystical numerals on it, oh yes and carrying a wand in one hand would be good too, for the theist/religionist.
ippy
Is that MTV?.........Masochistic Television?
Sword,Since I've known Hillside he has moved heaven and earth, definition and category to get our minds to equate Leprechauns with God. And yet, most recently he has treated us to the spectacle of trying to argue that an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe is not the same as an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe.
That’s very poor. Logic is logic, regardless of the desirability or otherwise of where the argument happens to lead. There is no “assumed position”, and there’s nothing euphemistic about discounting arguments that are logically false. If, say, someone attempts an argument from personal incredulity, or a shifting of the burden of proof, or a post hoc ergo propter hoc then the argument is just wrong.
For a long time Vlad especially tried to argue that the outcome mattered – thus in his head “leprechauns” was ridiculous but “God” wasn’t, therefore the same argument that led to each should be treated differently in each case but it doesn’t work. The characteristics of the outcome cannot somehow reach back into the argument that produced it to change it from a bad argument to a good one.
To put it another way, even if I desperately wanted “God” to be true, a bad argument would no more validate it than it would validate anything else.
And do all religious people do that? To be honest the idea of 'thinking for yourself' seems undefined and those making pontifications about it doing so from a position of not even understanding what they assert.Atheists like myself used to believe in a God/force/power when young because that was the ethos of the time. It was considered the height of bad manners even to bring up the subject of religion in conversation, so natural-born sceptics like myself did not hear of it until later. I consider myself fortunate that I believed only in a God, all the rest was allegory etc.
Hillside deserves some kind of medal for God avoidance...since you have brought up medal awards then you should consider for your good self medals for,
Since I've known Hillside he has moved heaven and earth definition and category to get our minds to equate Leprechauns with God.
And yet, most recently he has treated us to the spectacle of trying to argue that an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe is not the same as an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe.
The issue here is not whether God is unqualified or overqualified as creator of the universe but whether Hillside deserves some kind of medal for God avoidance.
NS
That post was supposed to be in response to one of Gabriella's - sorry about that. I'll try and find which one and then perhaps you could do some editing, please?
Vlad,Goodness, Hillside you must know what your doing by now?
And as a dog returns to its vomit, so Vlad returns to one of his favourite lies. Wearily and yet again, the only “equating” is not of the outcomes but is of the arguments that lead equally to each of those outcomes…
…the arguments.
Perhaps if you wrote it down a hundred times or something?
And that’s two lies in quick succession. You’re on a roll here old son.
I set out several times the grand Canyon-sized gap between the conditions necessary for SU and the conditions necessary for theism, and there you go again just pretending it hadn’t happened.
What do you get out of your trolling?
What though?
And he scores the hat trick of dishonesty. Fantastic! You know perfectly well the next bit, and no doubt in the not-too-distant future you’ll just pretend again that it hasn’t been explained to you but, for what it’s worth and yet again…
…you cannot avoid something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.
Let me know if ever that sinks in won’t you.
Goodness, Hillside you must know what your doing by now?
What I'm interested in is your self justification for it.
A person who is dodging something is dodging something.
You gave that away during discussions about SU and then, layered on top of that is the contradictory behaviour of trying to get us to equate Leprechauns and God.
Goodness, Hillside you must know what your doing by now?
A person who is dodging something is dodging something.
NS
That post was supposed to be in response to one of Gabriella's - sorry about that. I'll try and find which one and then perhaps you could do some editing, please?
But given that the claims you allege he's dodging are of something weightless, dimensionless, intangible, unevidenced, invisible, undetectable and unverifiable... how do we know if he's dodging God or leprechauns?Oh dear That doesn't help Hillside. He's trying to claim that he is not trying to get us to equate God with Leprechauns.
O.
If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with or haven't thought about either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.
Are you assuming that all theists agree or disagree with something without thinking about it, trying the experience and continuing with it if the experience is beneficial, much like the way morals work about what is good or bad, right to wrong?
Is there a special definition of "thinking" that you are using here?
I think it might have been #467 but am not quite sure....
Anyway, I note that Sword of the spirit has arrived on the scene to bestow upon us a few words of, um, wisdom.
I shall make a comment on faith. Chucking blind faith in the mix looks like muddying the waters.
A materialist or naturalist has a definition of evidence and yet there is no such evidence for taking any position vis a vis the nature of the cosmos to start an argument requires a position reached at by a leap of faith.
I shall make a comment on faith. Chucking blind faith in the mix looks like muddying the waters.
A materialist or naturalist has a definition of evidence and yet there is no such evidence for taking any position vis a vis the nature of the cosmos to start an argument requires a position reached at by a leap of faith.
Oh dear That doesn't help Hillside. He's trying to claim that he is not trying to get us to equate God with Leprechauns.
Vlad,''Don't know'' is acceptable. ''Don't know but it cant be whatever you say'' isn't.
No unless you can explain a difference between them it isn’t.
Oh dear. What on earth is “the nature of the cosmos” supposed to mean, and what “leap of faith” would a “don’t know” require in any case?
PS No comment on your flat out lying I see. Oh well, 'twas ever thus I guess.
''Don't know'' is acceptable. ''Don't know but it cant be whatever you say'' isn't.
Don't start me on on things which aren't different Hillside or the Jacob Marley that is SU might be a shakin' his chains. Ha Ha Ha.
Gabriella,BHS
There seems to be a nasty case of the Vlads breaking out here. Here’s what I actually said:
“Whether something is "worth accepting" tells you nothing about whether it's true. The addition of "faith" to the mix bridges the gap from assertion to fact with no logic to take you there.”
First, as you were silent on the matter can I take it that you agree that finding something “worth accepting” tells you nothing about its objective truth?
Second, and leaving aside your tu quoque, while some atheists may well make unqualified assertions we also have the signal advantage of logic and reason – specifically, whenever an AB, a Sword, a Vlad etc attempt a logically false argument all that’s necessary is to identify why it’s false. By and large the non-religious here at least do that a lot I’d say, frankly because we can.
No. To the contrary, I suspect that a lot of them do think them to be true. The point rather was that, when the assertions rely on faith, they have no means to validate them.
Oh dear That doesn't help Hillside. He's trying to claim that he is not trying to get us to equate God with Leprechauns.
Oh dear That doesn't help Hillside. He's trying to claim that he is not trying to get us to equate God with Leprechauns.
And it still isn't, it's trying to ask how would anyone tell the difference- it's equating the arguments. I'm sure that's been pointed out already.equating the arguments, equating characteristics. Leprechaun characteristics have been a movable feast ranging from diminutive Irish chaps in green suits to beings indistinguishable from the divine.
O.
(please note reply is from SusanDoris who had replied to my post in error but asked me to edit for her to reply to this post)Thanks NS.
Atheists like myself used to believe in a God/force/power when young because that was the ethos of the time. It was considered the height of bad manners even to bring up the subject of religion in conversation, so natural-born sceptics like myself did not hear of it until later. I consider myself fortunate that I believed only in a God, all the rest was allegory etc.
Once I erased that God belief, nothing or nobody could ever persuade me to return to a belief which relies on faith alone. It makes no sense at all logically, rationally, or any other similar adverb - not to me anyway.
Of course, though I an intrigued by the phrase you used, 'natural-born skeptics'?As a child, I was the one asking, 'Why?' and [Is this TRUE?' which, when I think back on it, was often answered by, 'Look it up in the World of Wondre', or, 'Godmoves in mysterious ways.' I think perhaps my mother was a bit more sceptical but she would never have said anything which would give a different message to my father's firm belief in God.
You're not doing very well just lately Vlad, you still don't understand Secularism, it now looks like you have a very limited understanding of Humanism and you can't seem to get your head around the plain and simple fact that it doesn't make any sense to avoid, dodge, something that you have no reason to think is there in the first place, to avoid or dodge?Absolutely true, of course, ipster. Needless to say, acknowledging this would utterly torpedo Vlad's laughable thesis that atheists actually believe in God but 'dodge' it. Ridiculous, but there it is.
As a child, I was the one asking, 'Why?' and [Is this TRUE?' which, when I think back on it, was often answered by, 'Look it up in the World of Wondre', or, 'Godmoves in mysterious ways.' I think perhaps my mother was a bit more sceptical but she would never have said anything which would give a different message to my father's firm belief in God.So you advocate the reduction of ideas?
Bearing in mind what I know now, if I had been brought up by atheist parents, then I would not have taken so long to erase the idea of God from my mind - well, it wouldn't have been there in the first place!!
If you're trying to turn this into yet another discussion about verifying objectively whether God exists or not, you're either confused about what was said and responding to a point that was never made or deliberately evading the point I made. Or as you like to assert ad nauseam, you're doing a Vlad. Shaker and I were discussing whether theists can think for themselves about morals.
You seemed to accept my statement in #439 that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture. So some theists were thinking and reasoning to come up with changing some stuff and keeping some stuff, much like morals from an atheist perspective changed over time but were based on the ideas of others.
You seemed to agree in #430 that there are theists who think for themselves about issues, since you seemed to agree that plenty interpret their scripture in a way that is no less or no more homophobic or misogynistic than atheists. For theists to interpret scripture in different ways, much like atheists interpret laws and moral codes in different ways, there is presumably a thought process going on.
I agree that whether any of these atheist or theist morals and laws are worth accepting tells you nothing about whether they are objectively true.
If you want to say that theists and atheists always bridge the gap between their assertions about morals and fact using faith with no logic to take you there, I disagree - I think both theists and atheists show some reasoning as part of the input to arrive at their moral code or decisions to obey or break the law. When you say assertions about morals are fact or can be validated - are you claiming there is an objective morality?
I agree that unqualified assertions are made by both theists and atheists. It also seems that in many cases both their moral codes might be more influenced by loyalty to cultural influences, and that some theists use the short-hand of "it's my religion" and some atheists and theists use the short-hand of "it will cause harm to society" without actually carrying out a cost benefit analysis to support their assertions, and some atheists use the short hand of 'avoiding the point and ridiculing theists belief in God' in order to avoid a lengthy discussion or the efforts of laying out and justifying their thought process or moral position to someone else.
Thanks NS.
Susan - I can certainly see how that might have been the experience when you were young.
If we're talking only about personal experience, when I was young it was different - in middle-class London lots of the people I went to school with were atheists. We, the atheists - mostly led by me - used to have regular discussions in the sixth-form common room challenging the beliefs of theists.
Having ridiculed theist beliefs myself, I was somewhat wary of becoming a theist a few years later, knowing I was going to be ridiculed since even more people were proclaiming themselves atheist plus most of my friends were atheists. I guess my need for certainty and my fear of ridicule reduced once I stopped being a teenager, and it seems the older I get the less I need certainty, but I feel happier - partly because I accomplish a lot more goals because of the additional structure, self-control, balance, community feeling and values I get from practising my religion. If it turns out I'm wrong about God, I'm not bothered. If there is no after life - no problem - would be a relief actually. But my personal experience both from having been an atheist and from those times when my faith and practice is weak, is that believing in God and an after life and practising my religion helps me live what I feel is a more balanced, less destructive or materialistic life - so I don't intend to give up those beliefs and practices.
equating the arguments, equating characteristics.
Leprechaun characteristics have been a movable feast ranging from diminutive Irish chaps in green suits to beings indistinguishable from the divine.
The point I made is that whereas Hillside might be equating the arguments/descriptions…
…he then, in the case of what the creator of a universe must be, tries to make identical arguments/descriptions unequal.
IMHO then he will use contradictory ideas to suit his argument. Equating in the face of significant category differences when it suits, denying equation where there is obvious equation when it doesn't. It can be argued that arguing God and Leprechauns is argument from ridicule, an appeal to emotion.
So you advocate the reduction of ideas?
Absolutely true, of course, ipster. Needless to say, acknowledging this would utterly torpedo Vlad's laughable thesis that atheists actually believe in God but 'dodge' it. Ridiculous, but there it is.1; I speak as someone who can recognise what it is people are evading and I recognise the arguments as a former dodger myself.
Vlad,See D. Sloan Wilson on New Atheism as a Stealth religion.
No, she's advocating the reduction of bad ideas.
1; I speak as someone who can recognise what it is people are evading and I recognise the arguments as a former dodger myself.Well there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day until the next time.
2; If one is unable to recognise what it is people are evading they will still be seeing dodging, ducking and diving behaviour, evasion, the waving of hands, straw clutching, goal post moving for no apparent reason and conclude strange disturbed, irrational behaviour.
3;If they do not recognise this behaviour as that then that is either the norm for them or they themselves are similarly avoiding.
Have a nice day.
if I had been brought up by atheist parents, then I would not have taken so long to erase the idea of God from my mind - well, it wouldn't have been there in the first place!!That might be vaguely possible if your parents were apatheists say, but how could one avoid God say, in a household of ranting New Atheists?
equating the arguments, equating characteristics. Leprechaun characteristics have been a movable feast ranging from diminutive Irish chaps in green suits to beings indistinguishable from the divine.
Gabriella,Presumably you are not suggesting that everyone reads the basic scripture and understands and applies it to their individual circumstance without using interpretation?
I’m not. First, I merely said that finding something to be “worth accepting” tells you nothing about whether it’s true.
Second, faith clams aren't just about morality specifically and even then what I was actually doing was explaining that when you think “faith” is a reliable and inerrant guide truth then, unless you have a rationale for that position a priori, it’s pretty much the enemy of “thinking for yourself". It's what takes up the slack when the thinking stops.
Focus on that “that weren't covered in the basic scripture”. If it’s scriptural (and therefore presumably categorically true, not amenable to re-interpretation etc) then there’s no thinking for yourself. If it isn’t, it’s just an early attempt at moral philosophy – which is fine by me, but not as I understand it consistent with those who think “faith” in scripture is epistemically valid.
Yes, at least until they run up against the bits they’re told they have to accept as true as articles of faith.
Would have been helpful if you’d just said that in the first place, but OK.
I don’t, and “no” respectively. What I do say is that “faith” is the pixie dust that gives some people certainty with no logic to support it – there's no thinking required.
That’s not the issue. What logic tells you is that there is no certainty. “Faith” on the other hand provides unwarranted certainty for those who think it to be reliable. And that in my rarely humble opinion is why it’s so pernicious.
Looks more like bowing to social pressures than belief to me Gabriella, and of course you're entitled, believe away.Depends how you are defining "bowing to social pressure" since no one pressured me to be a theist, and the only social pressure I am aware of is the pressure to not be a theist. It appears "uncool" to be a theist.
ippy
Depends how you are defining "bowing to social pressure" since no one pressured me to be a theist, and the only social pressure I am aware of is the pressure to not be a theist. It appears "uncool" to be a theist.
They can be green-clad, Irish, well-dressed and divine, you understand, all at the same time, just like gods can apparently be themselves, the entirely human incarnation of themselves, and the spirit of themselves moving through the world, all at the same time. Sometimes, except when they're not. It's almost like the depiction of god has been a moveable feast...Yes one can see the process of equation between Leprechauns and God. One wonders why Hillside and yourself fail to apply the same principles over these identical statements :
O.
I've read your post Gabriella, you can put whatever label on it you like, it still looks like bowing to social pressure to me, it's not for me to tell you what to do it's your choice.I agree it's my choice.
ippy
An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.
If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same yet deny that the above cannot be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.
That might be vaguely possible if your parents were apatheists say, but how could one avoid God say, in a household of ranting New Atheists?
Your curiosity might also be fired by being told you don't need to know anything about Leprechauns.
I can't speak for Hillside, I've not been following his line of argument closely, but for myself I've accepted that:My apologies then.
About all you ever get in an atheist house about religion Vlad, is when one or another answers a knock or ring at the front door you come back in, someone asks who was that? The reply is usually something like, oh just another religious nut or another, religious time waster that sort of thing and that's all they worth in a comment.Are you saying then that atheists bring their children up to believe that religious people are Nuts or nutters?
Apart from these pages on the forum where we read the preposterous religious claims that real people really do actually believe, religion has zero to do with my daily live and I can't see any reason why it should, atheists do write in like I do from time to time just in a caring benevolent way to help religious believing posters to try to come to terms with their aberrations.
ippy
1; I speak as someone who can recognise what it is people are evading and I recognise the arguments as a former dodger myself.
2; If one is unable to recognise what it is people are evading they will still be seeing dodging, ducking and diving behaviour, evasion, the waving of hands, straw clutching, goal post moving for no apparent reason and conclude strange disturbed, irrational behaviour.
3;If they do not recognise this behaviour as that then that is either the norm for them or they themselves are similarly avoiding.
Have a nice day.
I agree it's my choice.
I've read your post and have no idea what you mean by bowing to social pressure if you don't want to explain your opinion, but it's not for me to tell you what to do, it's your choice.
Presumably you are not suggesting that everyone reads the basic scripture and understands and applies it to their individual circumstance without using interpretation?
I tend to view things as problematic based on the effects they have on others so can you please be more specific. When you say that some theists think "faith is a reliable and inerrant guide to truth", and give me an example of the resurrection as a "truth", I could not figure out why it was problematic for other people if someone believed in the resurrection, whereas I can see why an action,e.g. believing in widows burning themselves on their husband's funeral pyre as a sign of devotion rather than starve to death or be at the mercy of family (since the husband's wealth did not pass to his widow), could cause a problem.
There is no reliable method to ascertain the truth of their belief in the resurrection or the truth of the belief that it is a religious duty to burn yourself, or the truth of a belief in the concept of honour (which is not a religious concept) but we can judge the individual actions that arise from any of these beliefs and see if the actions are problematic, and if they are problematic, we can judge whether society can stop the action or whether not carrying out the action would cause worse problems.
We have no method to ascertain the truth of many other beliefs that lead to policies or laws or a Brexit, as very often many of the experiences that are described as "causing harm" are not quantifiable data but are only in someone's head - based on their subjective perspective and emotion - or the experiences will occur many years in the future and people have different estimates of the resulting harm from different courses of action. It may be possible to make some evaluations that include some logic, reason, facts or quantifiable data, but beliefs are an integral part of the process.
Faith and certainty that your moral actions that impact on others are right is problematic. Faith that God exists - not seeing the problem.
Yes one can see the process of equation between Leprechauns and God. One wonders why Hillside and yourself fail to apply the same principles over these identical statements :
An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.
If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same yet deny that the above can be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.
Are you saying then that atheists bring their children up to believe that religious people are Nuts or nutters?
I can't speak for Hillside, I've not been following his line of argument closely, but for myself I've accepted that: what I've pointed out is that this is not a sufficient definition to be the usual understanding of god (or, therefore, the occasional definition of leprechauns)
If only had done such a thing... Of course, what you're still misunderstanding is that people aren't saying that God and leprechauns are the same thing, they're saying that the arguments for the purported qualities of such things are meaningless in the absence of any means to test them.
Yes one can see the process of equation between Leprechauns and God.
One wonders why Hillside and yourself fail to apply the same principles over these identical statements :
An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.
If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same…
…yet deny that the above can be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.
Perhaps you could outline what Hillside has been getting at beyond what I describe.
Gabriella,You still haven't explained how a religion's core beliefs exist on their own - without individual people to interpret and act on them and be certain that they are right. In the same way non-religious morals by themselves don't cause problems without people to act on them and be certain their morals are right. I agree people who are certain they are right are a problem.
I’m not suggesting that “everyone” does anything. I am though suggesting that most religions at least seem to have core beliefs that are inerrant, unequivocal and unquestionable because they are the revealed words of gods – and that these things are held to be true as matters of “faith”.
It’s problematic for several reasons – because things are taught as facts to children when the people doing it cannot know them to be facts at all, because privileging faith over guessing disarms reasoning regardless of what the content of the faith claims happens to be etc.You keep asserting it is problematic - I am not seeing the problem unless the consequence of an action causes problems.
How would you propose to disregard the inerrant words of a god because you found the consequences to be “problematic”?
That’s a false comparison because these matters are at least in some regard investigable – whether a priori or post facto. How would you propose to investigate the revealed word of a god that you know to be the revealed word of a god . the word of god is because that’s your “faith”? Even if the faith belief was catastrophically harmful (as so often in theocracies), surely a god would know better, have a higher purpose, work in mysterious ways wouldn’t he?I don't investigate the word of god as without a person to interpret it, the word of god has no relevance. So I investigate the person interpreting it. How do you investigate someone's perceptions in order to arrive at an objective truth of whether something is right or wrong? You can't yet we make moral decisions because we have to make some decision.
That’s because you’re choosing not to see it. As an argument for deism, that’s fine. But if you have faith that a theistic god exists – and you think “faith” is epistemically useful for that purpose – why would you not follow where that leads by also having faith that this god knows best, that this god’s rules are inerrantly written in a “holy” book, that anything you observe about the consequences of that are as nothing compared with this god’s higher purpose etc?You're choosing not to see it. Without people to interpret it no one has any concept of what god supposedly knows or says.
I don't mind you asking me but I must say why would anyone need to me describe the meaning of social pressure? Social pressure!Sorry if I wasn't being clear - what you're being asked for is the reasoning behind your assertion. It's your choice if you want to reveal your reasoning, I'm not telling you what to do.
Plus the fact I did very carefully state, 'it looks like', not exactly an attempt to nail my view down on all four corners.
ippy
Floo and Ippy are very lucky, they can miraculously arrive at conclusions without needing to mess around with reasoning - reasoning mainly being spending a lot of time beating about the bush and confusing oneself with logic.
You still haven't explained how a religion's core beliefs exist on their own - without individual people to interpret and act on them and be certain that they are right. In the same way non-religious morals by themselves don't cause problems without people to act on them and be certain their morals are right. I agree people who are certain they are right are a problem.
You keep asserting it is problematic - I am not seeing the problem unless the consequence of an action causes problems.
And when the consequences cause a problem there are clearly theists who think their original interpretation needs to be re-interpreted in light of new information to arrive at what they think is better outcome. Only the theists who don't do this cause problems, not all theists.
I don't investigate the word of god as without a person to interpret it, the word of god has no relevance. So I investigate the person interpreting it. How do you investigate someone's perceptions in order to arrive at an objective truth of whether something is right or wrong? You can't yet we make moral decisions because we have to make some decision.
You're choosing not to see it. Without people to interpret it no one has any concept of what god supposedly knows or says.
You make a claim about the nature of god. That claim is untestable, and therefore could be made about anything supernatural - leprechauns, jabberwockies, yurei, abchanchu, Anzu... If an argument cannot be tested or validated (and does not spring purely from logic) then what use is it? It can be made with any other unevidenced claim in the same place with exactly the same (in)validity.Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not. And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
O.
The divine is not observable in the same way.
Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not.
And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
The divine is not observable in the same way.
If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.
These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board. That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.
I understand that this makes things hard for the physicalist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Gabriella,You are still just repeating your assertion. How does a core belief exist without a person to believe it and how does a person believe it without their brain processing the inputs and interpreting those inputs?
At some point you’re going to have to grasp the nettle. Either you think that certain core beliefs do exist “on their own” because your faith tells you so, or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s fine by me – you can treat the “holy” texts as you would any other attempts by people to understand the world, albeit relatively primitive ones appropriate to their times. If you do though, then if everything potentially at least is up for re-interpretation what need is there for a god sitting behind it?
It does. Are your seriously suggesting that the behaviours of theocracies for example aren’t (and haven’t always been) “problematic” for those unfortunate enough to have been subjected to them?Certain people's interpretations and behaviours are problems - but I don't hold this as a problem for theists who don't behave this way, anymore than I consider all men as a problem because of the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein.
Tell it to the clerics who provide the intellectual cover for ISIS.
We do, but sometimes someone will say, “X is true because god says so, and I know that because that’s my faith”. Then what?You still haven't explained how any revealed instructions could be acted upon, accurately or otherwise, if there is no one to take the revelation into their brain and interpret it to figure out a way for it to apply to their individual circumstance. In which case it is a subjective opinion as to whether the interpretation is accurate.
You could I suppose shop around until you found a cleric who said instead, “Y is true because god says so, and I know that because that’s my faith” (assuming you happen to prefer Y over X) but that would just be confirmation bias – you wouldn’t have investigated anything.
Nope. What “interpretation” could there be of the accurately worded revealed instructions of gods? Either you think everything is up for grabs (in which case the god bit is redundant) or you don’t (in which case the faith bit is the problem).
Incidentally, why too if there was a god who wanted us to know what his rules are would he make them so unclear that we’d need an eternity to re-interpret them, and even then not know whether we’d got it right? What test could we apply to know whether the current interpretation is now the correct one?
Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not.
And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
The divine is not observable in the same way.
If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.
These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board.
That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.
I understand that this makes things hard for the physicalist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Is it? More or less so than observations of Jesus in toast?hang on, we were comparing Leprechauns and Jesus. Where, apart from desperation, Does Jesus in toast come from?
Sorry if I wasn't being clear - what you're being asked for is the reasoning behind your assertion. It's your choice if you want to reveal your reasoning, I'm not telling you what to do.
Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not. And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
The divine is not observable in the same way. If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.
These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board.
That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.
I understand that this makes things hard for the physicist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.
If I was asserting something again,why would I say, 'it looks like', it looks like like Social pressure to me, so having stated that I meant social pressure in the same way as anyone else would mean social pressure, you're not telling me that you don't understand what social pressure amounts to?
This is becoming a set of postings about the normal use of everyday English in which I made myself very clear the first time I wrote, we may as well start on about what do you mean about, 'reveal', as it happens I'm not so don't start on that.
Please feel free Gabriella to make what you will of any post of mine I've lost interest.
Ippy
hang on, we were comparing Leprechauns and Jesus. Where, apart from desperation, Does Jesus in toast come from?
Gabriella was asking why you think it is social pressure since as she explained she felt social pressure to be an atheist.
You are the one trying to compare Leprechauns with God.
Now who's guilty of 'special pleading'? What is 'divine' other than 'my preferred type of supernatural that I'd like to be treated differently'.
You are still just repeating your assertion. How does a core belief exist without a person to believe it and how does a person believe it without their brain processing the inputs and interpreting those inputs?
Certain people's interpretations and behaviours are problems - but I don't hold this as a problem for theists who don't behave this way, anymore than I consider all men as a problem because of the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein.
You still haven't explained how any revealed instructions could be accurate or otherwise if there is no one to take the revelation into their brain and interpret it to figure out a way for it to apply to their individual circumstance. In which case it is a subjective opinion as to whether the interpretation is accurate.
What's your theory on how this accurately worded, revealed instruction is understood by the brain of a person without the need for interpretation?
You are the one trying to compare Leprechauns with God.But you are already making an unevidenced leap, in other words assuming that the historical Jesus is somehow God. There is no evidence for that so let's sticky to the actual point.
I have heard of the Historical Jesus but Historical leprechauns? What are you thinking?
You are the one trying to compare Leprechauns with God.
I have heard of the Historical Jesus but Historical leprechauns? What are you thinking?
You don't appear to want leprechauns just to be faeries, you want them to be divine.
Arrr mister muddle himself having a good day are we?Yes, and your inability to answer straight questions convinces me all must be right with this world.
ippy
The divine is not observable in the same way.
Still not what's happening. I'm comparing the bad arguments for gods to equally bad arguments for leprechauns
Outy,
Or, even more on point, to the same bad arguments for leprechauns.
For some unexplained reason he seems to think that a bad argument for an outcome he finds to be ridiculous (leprechauns) somehow becomes a better one for an outcome he thinks is fine ("God").
Why he thinks that is anyone's guess, but it's either dimwitted or dishonest whichever way you look at it.
I'm presuming he thinks he sees something different between the two;...
...I don't see it myself, but I think to presume dishonesty is unfair, and he's obviously not dim-witted - he might be wrong, but even smart people are wrong sometimes.
But there isn't "the two" - there's just "the one", ie one and the same argument. Endlessly arguing that leprechauns wear green hats while god cures little Timmy of his rickets is utterly irrelevant to the point, namely that a bad argument doesn't become a good one depending on opinions about its outcome.
I think you're forgetting his long history of dishonesty, such that he doesn't even bother denying it these days. Eventually after a long exchange of "I say X", "So you say Y then", "No, I said X", "So you said Y then", "No, look here's the exact quote where I said X", "So you said Y then" etc it's hard to avoid the conclusion of wilful dishonesty. His recent efforts re SU vs theism and "comparing god with leprechauns" are cases in point.
Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not. And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.Jesus caught on film...
The divine is not observable in the same way. If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.
But you are already making an unevidenced leap, in other words assuming that the historical Jesus is somehow God. There is no evidence for that so let's sticky to the actual point.
That's my take on it, but it doesn't hurt to presume that he at least thinks there's something else. One of us is wrong, I suspect that it's him, and I keep giving him the opportunity to demonstrate that there's more to it than I can see.
I'm far from perfect…
I can't really complain if other people aren't. And, of course, I've been away for quite a while, so I'm still getting back into the swing of it again. Maybe I'll be a little less forgiving in six months time...
But you are already making an unevidenced leap, in other words assuming that the historical Jesus is somehow God. There is no evidence for that so let's sticky to the actual point.But We weren't talking about Jesus being God. Bringing that up is a red herring designed for you to avoid there being no historical Leprechauns. And if there are no historical leprechauns then that puts the Kybosh on your argument.
Comparing Leprechauns with God - seems to me that both are pretty well equivalent in terms of the credible evidence for their existence.
Thanks NS.Thank you for your reply. If you totally lacked belief in any God, i.e. you were an atheist, how did you come to believe, or what was said to you, that encouraged you to believe that such a myth could exist? If you knew before hand that there are no God/god/s, how did you convince yourself that there was?
Susan - I can certainly see how that might have been the experience when you were young.
If we're talking only about personal experience, when I was young it was different - in middle-class London lots of the people I went to school with were atheists. We, the atheists - mostly led by me - used to have regular discussions in the sixth-form common room challenging the beliefs of theists.
Having ridiculed theist beliefs myself, I was somewhat wary of becoming a theist a few years later, knowing I was going to be ridiculed since even more people were proclaiming themselves atheist plus most of my friends were atheists. I guess my need for certainty and my fear of ridicule reduced once I stopped being a teenager, and it seems the older I get the less I need certainty, but I feel happier - partly because I accomplish a lot more goals because of the additional structure, self-control, balance, community feeling and values I get from practising my religion. If it turns out I'm wrong about God, I'm not bothered. If there is no after life - no problem - would be a relief actually. But my personal experience both from having been an atheist and from those times when my faith and practice is weak, is that believing in God and an after life and practising my religion helps me live what I feel is a more balanced, less destructive or materialistic life - so I don't intend to give up those beliefs and practices.
But We weren't talking about Jesus being God. Bringing that up is a red herring designed for you to avoid there being no historical Leprechauns. And if there are no historical leprechauns then that puts the Kybosh on your argument.
Ducky, Divey, God avoidance IMHO.
But We weren't talking about Jesus being God.Then why bring up the notion of the historical Jesus - if you think he's just a man like everyone else then comparing him to Leprechauns (mythical creatures) is bizarre. So the only reason why you might bring the historical Jesus into the conversation would be if you were making a point along the lines of 'you can't compare Leprechauns to God because there is no equivalent of the historical Jesus (who is God) for Leprechauns'. You are making a completely unsubstantiated assumption re: historical Jesus and God - otherwise your comment is non-sensical.
Then why bring up the notion of the historical Jesus - if you think he's just a man like everyone else then comparing him to Leprechauns (mythical creatures) is bizarre. So the only reason why you might bring the historical Jesus into the conversation would be if you were making a point along the lines of 'you can't compare Leprechauns to God because there is no equivalent of the historical Jesus (who is God) for Leprechauns'. You are making a completely unsubstantiated assumption re: historical Jesus and God - otherwise your comment is non-sensical.I'm not saying let's not discuss Jesus being God. I am against rapidly bringing it in as a red herring to avoid the answer to the question are Leprechauns historical in the same sense that Jesus is historical?
Either way your thinking and arguments are woefully of the mark.
Jesus probably is historical and he claims to be the unique son of God.Are you seriously expecting us to believe that in your years on this forum you've not encountered all those times where Lewis's woeful pseudo-argument has been skinned, boned and gutted?
In that respect we are back down to Lewis's trilemma. He is either Mad, bad or The son of God. He either thinks he's the son of God, or is passing himself of as the son of God or he is the son of God
I'm not saying let's not discuss Jesus being God. I am against rapidly bringing it in as a red herring to avoid the answer to the question are Leprechauns historical in the same sense that Jesus is historical?
Leprechauns are not historical. Therefore we are dealing with a myth. Jesus probably is historical and he claims to be the unique son of God.
In that respect we are back down to Lewis's trilemma. He is either Mad, bad or The son of God. He either thinks he's the son of God, or is passing himself of as the son of God or he is the son of God
I'm not saying let's not discuss Jesus being God. I am against rapidly bringing it in as a red herring to avoid the answer to the question are Leprechauns historical in the same sense that Jesus is historical?
Leprechauns are not historical. Therefore we are dealing with a myth. Jesus probably is historical…
…and he claims to be the unique son of God.
In that respect we are back down to Lewis's trilemma. He is either Mad, bad or The son of God. He either thinks he's the son of God, or is passing himself of as the son of God or he is the son of God
Vlad,Are you accepting that Leprechauns are mythological? Are you saying that Leprechauns still exist but are merely supernatural?
The extent to which the “historical Jesus” is more or less folkloric than leprechauns is moot but, either way, it’s entirely beside the point - ie, an actual red herring.
But only probably. Or maybe only possibly. So?
Again, so?
And again, that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.
So, back to the same argument leading with equal facility to the supernatural Jesus and to supernatural leprechauns...
...any comment?
Leprechauns are not historical. Therefore we are dealing with a myth.How do you know - are you able to prove that Leprechauns didn't once exist - surely there are all sorts of reports from the dim and distant past of their existence, which are probable as verifiable and believable as the notion that a person died and came back to life 3 days later.
In that respect we are back down to Lewis's trilemma. He is either Mad, bad or The son of God. He either thinks he's the son of God, or is passing himself of as the son of God or he is the son of GodWe should have a Godwin's law for Lewis - anyone using his laughably flawed trilemma as any form of argument should be deemed instantly to have lost that argument so pitifully weak is his argument.
We should have a Godwin's law for Lewis - anyone using his laughably flawed trilemma as any form of argument should be deemed instantly to have lost that argument so pitifully weak is his argument.Not at all coincidentally a long post by you, Prof., taking it apart is one of the first results to come up if you search for 'trilemma.'
If I was asserting something again,why would I say, 'it looks like', it looks like like Social pressure to me, so having stated that I meant social pressure in the same way as anyone else would mean social pressure, you're not telling me that you don't understand what social pressure amounts to?Thanks I will. Looks like either the words "social pressure" popped in your head and you don't know why but you felt compelled to write them in a post, or you think social pressure to be an atheist resulted in me being a theist but the same social pressure made you an atheist.
This is becoming a set of postings about the normal use of everyday English in which I made myself very clear the first time I wrote, we may as well start on about what do you mean about, 'reveal', as it happens I'm not so don't start on that.
Please feel free Gabriella to make what you will of any post of mine I've lost interest.
Ippy
Not at all coincidentally a long post by you, Prof., taking it apart is one of the first results to come up if you search for 'trilemma.'Lewis completely ignores that all we know about Jesus is through a lens created by others decades after the event. So 'mistaken', 'misrepresented' and 'exaggerated' are ignored, yet are far more plausible and likely than the lost of 'mad, bad or god' and negate Lewis deceit, being to try to force us to accept Jesus as mad or bad, unless we think he is god. Indeed actually his very premise that people would baulk at thinking Jesus might have been mad or bad (and therefore accept god) is way outdated, relying on a default acceptance of the importance and 'correctness' of Christianity in the UK, which might have been true in the 1950s, but isn't any more.
Vlad however seems disinclined to find out.
Not at all coincidentally a long post by you, Prof., taking it apart is one of the first results to come up if you search for 'trilemma.'Anything which has a ringing endorsement from you Shakes is a must see.
Vlad however seems disinclined to find out.
Anything which has a ringing endorsement from you Shakes is a must see.http://tinyurl.com/yct3aso5
............................................couldn't find it.
Lewis completely ignores that all we know about Jesus is through a lens created by others decades after the event. So 'mistaken', 'misrepresented' and 'exaggerated' are ignoredJesus is mistaken he is divine or the son of god then he is still deluded,
Jesus is mistaken he is divine or the son of god then he is still deluded,Nope - because you fail to recognise that we do not know, and indeed probably cannot know, whether Jesus ever claimed to be divine.
Gabriella,You'll have to ask the theists who think they are certain about what any supposed God's words mean. As I said before all the theists I know state they are expressing an opinion, and Allah knows best.
How does any belief exist without a “brain processing the inputs and interpreting those inputs” and, if it can’t, where then would that leave beliefs about the supposed inerrant, certain, categoric words of gods?
So far as I know Harvey Weinstein doesn’t claim to have acted as he did because of the instructions of a god. And in any case, how are they “problems” except in the sense of, “produce outcomes I Gabriella find to be unwelcome”? If any one cleric’s faith belief is only differentiated from another’s according to what you think of the real world effect they have, that’s all about your preferences and nothing about what a god may have decided on the matter.Whether he claims to have acted on the instructions of norms of the industry, his upbringing or a disease of sex addiction, I still don't hold the whole concept of masculinity responsible for the behaviour of individual men. In the same way I don't hold religion responsible for the behaviour of individual theists.
That’s a non sequitur. If you want to assert there to be revealed instruction how would you also claim to know what they are if everything’s up for interpretation? And re-interpretation? And then some more re-interpretation after that?I don't know what the Christian theory is but my understanding of Islam is that we have a message in the Quran, and the test on which we are judged is how we interpret the message, what our intentions are based on our interpretations, and how we actually behave - in other words we could have good or bad intentions but our actual acts may be different from our intentions as something could happen to prevent us doing what we intended.
What kind of god would on other words it be who thought, “OK, I’m going to share what my inerrant rules are in some holy books, only I’m not going to give my special creation the means ever to know for sure what they are. Mwa ha haaaar” etc?
It’s not my theory at all. If someone wants to claim that the inerrant instructions of a god are accurately written in a book, it’s for him I’d have thought to explain how he’s ever know what the correct interpretation of them is. I’d have thought the obvious fudge would be to argue that some things are so plain that no amount of interpretation would change that, but as it’s not my problem it’s not an argument I’d have to attempt.
http://tinyurl.com/yct3aso5I'm afraid all I see is ''rant''. Yes Davey does make the point one can reject that Jesus claimed to be divine and was not crucified for blasphemy but that requires an alternative Jesus who doesn't change the subsequent history in anyway. It needs to explain the fuss over Jesus. Jesus myth is not new. It is fringe.
http://tinyurl.com/y7ldxrml
.
http://tinyurl.com/y82czrtf
I'm afraid all I see is ''rant''. Yes Davey does make the point one can reject that Jesus claimed to be divine and was not crucified for blasphemy but that requires an alternative Jesus who doesn't change the subsequent history in anyway. It needs to explain the fuss over Jesus. Jesus myth is not new. It is fringe.What fuss - there was no contemporary fuss. Most people living in Palestine at the time of Jesus' life and death weren't persuaded that he was special and the son of god - hence the fact that Christianity (pretty well uniquely amongst religions) failed to gain a significant foothold in the place where it arose.
I'm afraid all I see is ''rant''.... which in itself is an open admission of how divorced from reality you are. In the list of those on the forum least likely to rant, the Prof. is near the top.
I'm afraid all I see is ''rant''. Yes Davey does make the point one can reject that Jesus claimed to be divine and was not crucified for blasphemy but that requires an alternative Jesus who doesn't change the subsequent history in anyway. It needs to explain the fuss over Jesus. Jesus myth is not new. It is fringe.
... which in itself is an open admission of how divorced from reality you are. In the list of those on the forum least likely to rant, the Prof. is near the top.Lewis deals extensively with Jesus as myth. He is after all a well read academic in literature so presumably the trilemma is for those who have not dismissed the accounts.
Lewis deals extensively with Jesus as myth. He is after all a well read academic in literature so presumably the trilemma is for those who have not dismissed the accounts.Nope we have a multilemma (if that is a thing) and one in which each option isn't distinct but exists on a spectrum. And, of course, the focus on what Jesus thought is totally misplaced, because we do not know what he thought - all we know if what others writing decades later, in places distant to Palestine and who never met Jesus claimed he thought. So the focus must be on the early Christian writers, not Jesus.
Even if Lewis has "failed", so what, we have a quadrilemma.
Nope - because you fail to recognise that we do not know, and indeed probably cannot know, whether Jesus ever claimed to be divine.We have in the earliest epistles evidence that the gospel was already at full throttle in this community.
Nope, all we know is that people decades later claimed that he was and that he himself claimed to be - that is an entirely different matter. Just because someone claims that someone else claimed something, doesn't mean that someone else actually did ever make that claim.
Decades after the original film many people think that Bogart exclaimed 'play it again, Sam' - he didn't. We know he didn't as we have the original film as evidence. But had that film been lost to us decades ago, we might believe the erroneous claims that he said 'play it again, Sam'.
Nope we have a multilemma (if that is a thing) and one in which each option isn't distinct but exists on a spectrum. And, of course, the focus on what Jesus thought is totally misplaced, because we do not know what he thought - all we know if what others writing decades later, in places distant to Palestine and who never met Jesus claimed he thought. So the focus must be on the early Christian writers, not Jesus.
Nope we have a multilemma (if that is a thing) and one in which each option isn't distinct but exists on a spectrum. And, of course, the focus on what Jesus thought is totally misplaced, because we do not know what he thought - all we know if what others writing decades later, in places distant to Palestine and who never met Jesus claimed he thought. So the focus must be on the early Christian writers, not Jesus.There are several get offs I suppose and Lewis deals with them and then we get to the trilemma.
And because Davey got that wrong we can ignore everything else he says according to Atheist Central rules governing CS Lewis.
Just for info, it's polylemma.
And because Davey got that wrong we can ignore everything else he says according to Atheist Central rules governing CS Lewis.Actually I didn't get it wrong - or at least I was using standard scientific approaches, so as applied to smaller units of polymers. Typically you have monomer, dimer, trimer etc up to about decamer - after that, when there are perhaps 10s of monomers joined, the term multimer is used. For larger numbers again polymer is used. Some also claim there is a distinction based on the type of bond, but that isn't my understand from the peptide and polymer chemists I have in my own department.
Just for info, it's polylemma.
Are you accepting that Leprechauns are mythological? Are you saying that Leprechauns still exist but are merely supernatural?
Now that leprechauns never were little irish men at the ends of rainbows how do you propose to continue the appeal to ridicule?
VladOf course there hasn't.
There’s never been an “appeal to ridicule”.
You'll have to ask the theists who think they are certain about what any supposed God's words mean. As I said before all the theists I know state they are expressing an opinion, and Allah knows best.
Whether he claims to have acted on the instructions of norms of the industry, his upbringing or a disease of sex addiction, I still don't hold the whole concept of masculinity responsible for the behaviour of individual men. In the same way I don't hold religion responsible for the behaviour of individual theists.
I haven't figured out a way to establish what a god may have decided, so I think we can only hold opinions. Guess we will both have to wait until someone who thinks they know what any supposed God wants answers our question about how they established what said God wants.
I don't know what the Christian theory is but my understanding of Islam is that we have a message in the Quran, and the test on which we are judged is how we interpret the message, what our intentions are based on our interpretations, and how we actually behave - in other words we could have good or bad intentions but our actual acts may be different from our intentions as something could happen to prevent us doing what we intended.
Of course there hasn't.
There are several get offs I suppose and Lewis deals with them and then we get to the trilemma.But that is intellectually dishonest, because it is implying that the other options in the mulitlemma/polylemma can reasonably be discounted to leave just the trilemma, when of course they cannot.
To not test the more probable roots is psychological avoidance.
But that is intellectually dishonest, because it is implying that the other options in the mulitlemma/polylemma can reasonably be discounted to leave just the trilemma, when of course they cannot.I don't think it is intellectually dishonest. Lewis deals in his writings with the question of myth.
Vlad,Mainstream history has a Jesus who made claims which were taken up by others.
What method did you use to work out what was "more probable"?
Thank you for your reply. If you totally lacked belief in any God, i.e. you were an atheist, how did you come to believe, or what was said to you, that encouraged you to believe that such a myth could exist? If you knew before hand that there are no God/god/s, how did you convince yourself that there was?You're welcome. Not sure I can break my thought process down for you and convey the accompanying emotions that made up my belief in words but I'll give it a shot.
But that is intellectually dishonest, because it is implying that the other options in the mulitlemma/polylemma can reasonably be discounted to leave just the trilemma, when of course they cannot.OK but is Lewis basing the trilemma on a Jesus 'one liner' I'm not sure he is.
I know you are too blinded by your own beliefs to see this in relation to Jesus, so let's use a different example.
So rather than the claim that Jesus said he was god, let's use the claim that Bogart said 'play it again, Sam' in the film Casablanca. Applying the Lewis approach to that claim we are obliged to decide on the trilemma that Bogart is mad, bad or the man who said 'play it again, Sam' in the film Casablanca. All other options (including the truth) have been expunged to leave just three that are (in this case demonstrably) non-sense.
Now, of course at the heart of this is to be certain that Jesus said he was the son of god (or god) and that Bogart said 'play it again, Sam' in the film Casablanca - in the latter case we know that he didn't as we have the film as evidence. In the former case we do not know and cannot know whether he did as the nearest 'evidence' we have are others claiming he said it, and that is far too weak to support even starting on a Lewis type trilemma debate.
I don't think it is intellectually dishonest. Lewis deals in his writings with the question of myth.
He also invites comparisons between myth and reportage, a word I believe he uses, and comes out on the side of reportage. Having found he cannot discount the NT as a history he comes to the trilemma in the full knowledge that historical study cannot establish claims of divinity.
That leaves discounting the NT or what looks like selective discounting parts of it. Justification of that process is IMV rarely analysed and fictional it's taken often as a given.
Gabriella,I think you are the one who is avoiding it or missing it. As I said, I think I can form an opinion based on the text. I have no way of being certain if that opinion is correct, but I have to make a judgement call so I will proceed on the basis I got it vaguely right until I come across new information that leads me to change my understanding, intentions and actions.
You’re still avoiding it or missing it. Either you think that whatever “Allah knows” is discernable from a “holy” text or you don’t. If though all meaning is interpretation then the meaning comes from us, and Allah’s contribution is unknowable and therefore irrelevant.
“Responsible” and “a significant contributor to” are not the same thing (in both cases by the way). Once you remove the safety catch of reason, why though would you not accept instructions on the basis of faith, regardless of what they happen to be?I interpret the instructions - so I employ reason to try to figure out what the instructions are and how they apply to my situation and if the consequences of following the instructions is not acceptable to me.
And about why they think there’s a god at all. The point though is that, if you have no way to know what a god wants, what’s the point of the god at all?Trying to figure out what I think a god might want and evaluating the outcome of practising what I interpret is beneficial and interesting to me.
But how on earth would you even know what the “message in the Quran” might be when all is interpretation, when no opinion about that is any more or less valid than any other?I don't claim to know. I am ok with just having an opinion. I am not looking for certainty.
I think you are the one who is avoiding it or missing it. As I said, I think I can form an opinion based on the text. I have no way of being certain if that opinion is correct, but I have to make a judgement call so I will proceed on the basis I got it vaguely right until I come across new information that leads me to change my understanding, intentions and actions.
I interpret the instructions - so I employ reason to try to figure out what the instructions are and how they apply to my situation and if the consequences of following the instructions is not acceptable to me.
Trying to figure out what I think a god might want and evaluating the outcome of practising what I interpret is beneficial and interesting to me.
I don't claim to know. I am ok with just having an opinion. I am not looking for certainty.
OK but is Lewis basing the trilemma on a Jesus 'one liner' I'm not sure he is.You are correct - Lewis isn't basing his trilemma on anything we know actually Jesus said or claimed - he is basing it on that others writing decades later claimed he said. That is weaker still. And don't forget that the third-party claims about what Jesus said have further been through the prism, selection, alteration and translation of centuries of the church. We are a million miles away from having any certainty as to what Jesus actually said or claimed. Yet that is the basis of the trilemma - that Jesus must be mad, bad or god on the basis that he claimed to be. We do not know and indeed I'd argue now we cannot know whether he ever made such a claim.
Vlad,Again I don't think Lewis is basing the trilemma on a "one liner" or "one off".
See Reply 617. Presumably Lewis would have opted for reportage for that story too. What it actually leaves is the reality that what's reported to have happened and what actually happened are often different.
Vlad,Indeed - today we tend to have much more direct, available evidence on which to base the veracity of a claim - that wasn't true 2000 years ago.
See Reply 617. Presumably Lewis would have opted for reportage for that story too. What it actually leaves is the reality that what's reported to have happened and what actually happened are often different.
Again I don't think Lewis is basing the trilemma on a "one liner" or "one off".
Are you wanting us to dismiss all reporting.
History whatever will record a claim of catching a baby falling from a block of flats.......and it is the claims we are discussing here.
You are correct - Lewis isn't basing his trilemma on anything we know actually Jesus said or claimed - he is basing it on that others writing decades later claimed he said. That is weaker still. And don't forget that the third-party claims about what Jesus said have further been through the prism, selection, alteration and translation of centuries of the church. We are a million miles away from having any certainty as to what Jesus actually said or claimed. Yet that is the basis of the trilemma - that Jesus must be mad, bad or god on the basis that he claimed to be. We do not know and indeed I'd argue now we cannot know whether he ever made such a claim.Indeed. And I am saying that only Jesus claiming what he is supposed to explains the community extant at the writing of the first epistles within living memory.
Vlad,And the Grenfell 'myth' arose in hours linked to people who were actually there at the time and saw the events. There is a direct link between the reports and the actual event - yet it was still wrong.
Nor was the Grenfell story based on a "one liner" or "one off" – lots of people said they saw it, and they meant it too.
I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely explaining that reportage is often wrong even these days and I provided an example of that. If you choose not to think that the biblical reportage could be wrong even with all the more extenuating circumstances than those of Grenfell that's up to you, but it's quite a leap.
Eh? The Grenfell story was falsified because someone had the intent and means to check it. Neither applies to the religious stories you choose to think are "more probable" than not.
Vlad,You seem to be confusing claims of the supernatural with a supernatural event.
Nor was the Grenfell story based on a "one liner" or "one off" – lots of people said they saw it, and they meant it too.
I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely explaining that reportage is often wrong even these days and I provided an example of that. If you choose not to think that the biblical reportage could be wrong even with all the more extenuating circumstances than those of Grenfell that's up to you, but it's quite a leap.
Eh? The Grenfell story was falsified because someone had the intent and means to check it. Neither applies to the religious stories you choose to think are "more probable" than not.
Indeed. And I am saying that only Jesus claiming what he is supposed to explains the community extant at the writing of the first epistles within living memory.
You seem to be confusing claims of the supernatural with a supernatural event.
Davey and yourself have moved onto whether the claims were made.
A claim that a baby survived a fall was made and refuted. We see no successful refutation in the case of Jesus or the claimed claims.
What we have though at two to three decades documentation alluding to a community based on the claims of NT literature. If Jesus never made those claims twenty or thirty years later what explanation do you have for that community?
Vlad,I think your comparison between the Grenfall tragedy and the three year ministry of Jesus is the Michaelangelo of bad analogy.
Then you’re wrong to do so. All that would be necessary would be for people to have said that he said it, and for both they and he to have been believed. As there were many such back in the day, both claims and claims about claims were a commonplace.
Wrong again. Whether the story concerned a natural or a supposed supernatural event is irrelevant to the point that reportage can be, and often is, wrong even when it’s sincerely done.
But that could be because an intrepid investigator put in the hard yards, checked the official records, did the physics etc and the story checked out, or it could be that no refutation was attempted. The “successful refutation” now though is that the nature of the story is so shot through with improbables and unknowables that verification and falsification are impossible. Any belief that it must be true nonetheless could only therefore be a matter of personal faith.
The same explanation as for the many other communities that sprang up around any number of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, street conjurors etc. All that’s necessary is for people to believe the claims (or the claims of claims) and no more, a commonplace at the time when magic answers were so often accepted as true in the absence of better answers.
I think your comparison between the Grenfall tragedy and the three year ministry of Jesus is the Michaelangelo of bad analogy.
In terms of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, Street conjurors, lets have the information otherwise it just comes over as low sneering demeaning abuse designed to steer us way from him being some kind of threat to the political status quo.
Vlad,But we are talking about 1st century Mystics, soothsayer and street conjurors so we need the evidence and how it is relevant to whether Jesus made the claims or if their mention is a red herring.........Another thing.........who is George Jones?
Presumably because you’ve never understood what the term “analogy” means. I was merely showing that sincerely done reportage can be wrong nonetheless.
What information? That many sects sprang up around such figures? That’s easy to do, even in recent times (cargo cults, George Jones, David Koresh etc). So what though?
If Jesus never made those claims twenty or thirty years later what explanation do you have for that community?If Bogart never said 'play it again, Sam' what explanation do you have for an extensive community twenty or thirty years later that think he did.
But we are talking about 1st century Mystics, soothsayer and street conjurors so we need the evidence and how it is relevant to whether Jesus made the claims or if their mention is a red herring
.........Another thing.........who is George Jones?
Indeed. And I am saying that only Jesus claiming what he is supposed to explains the community extant at the writing of the first epistles within living memory.No it doesn't - all it suggests is that someone, and perhaps someone with influence, claimed he did.
If Bogart never said 'play it again, Sam' what explanation do you have for an extensive community twenty or thirty years later that think he did.Play it againists were the ebionites and Gnostics of their day.
During that timeframe there was even a play and a film linked to Bogart with that (non)quote as its title.
Gabriella,BHS
Doesn’t work. What would “correct” even mean if all is interpretation? I don’t have a dog in the fight here, but it seems to me a confused position to think on the one hand that a god’s intentions are written in a book, but on the other that there’s no way to know what they are.
No doubt, but as there as many opinions as there are people to have them what value do these “instructions” have?
But what method would you use for that “figuring out”, and what relevance would evaluating the outcomes have but for confirmation bias – if you happen to be a nice person, then happy outcomes confirm you’ve got the meaning “right”, and vice versa.
So again, what use is the Quran if all you have to rely on for guidance is your personal opinion about it?
Gabriella #616Following Islamic practice doesn't work for me without putting God into it - I don't get the beneficial effect I am afterwithout putting God into it. Annoying but like I said, the benefits for me outweigh the annoyance. I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheist and the sense of direction and structure and the way belief changes my responses in certain situations is part of the reason why I manage my life better.
Thank you for your interesting reply. I have no other comment to make except to say that if you knew beforehand that it was you managing your life without any God influencing it, it is puzzling to understand why you can then put the God - which I presume you knew was imaginary - into it.
I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheistPresumably you were doing it wrong.
Presumably you were doing it wrong.Are there ''plenty'' of atheists though?
Plenty of atheists seem to "manage their lives" perfectly well and capably without feeling a need to believe twaddle in order to do it better.
I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheist and the sense of direction and structure and the way belief changes my responses in certain situations is part of the reason why I manage my life better.I think all our situations are individual and in my case the opposite is true.
Presumably you were doing it wrong.I can answer that better when you define "wrong". What I wanted out of life as an atheist changed and being a theist helped get me closer to what I wanted.
Are there ''plenty'' of atheists though?Yes.
Also if they are increasing in the UK how come the country is far from managing, in fact quite the opposite?Because that's the fault of those who - for want of a far better word - lead the country, i.e. a tiny minority of politicians, not the non-religious majority. We live in a representative democracy where we elect people who, so the principle goes, do our bidding. This noble idea doesn't take into account the deceitfulness, mendacity and incompetence of said representatives.
Are there ''plenty'' of atheists though?What, that are comfortable in their atheism and manage their lives very well on that basis - yes there are.
Also if they are increasing in the UK how come the country is far from managing, in fact quite the opposite?Not sure you can lay the blame for the current problems in the UK at the door of the atheists. Two of the biggest issue we face are Brexit (can't see how that is an 'atheist' problem) and terrorism perpetrated by religious extremists, which certainly isn't the fault of atheists.
I can answer that better when you define "wrong".You introduced the concept of 'better' - 'wrong' is a state not as good as the situation that you claim obtains now. It's not usually a problematic concept.
What I wanted out of life as an atheist changed and being a theist helped get me closer to what I wanted.
Yes.Because that's the fault of those who - for want of a far better word - lead the country, i.e. a tiny minority of politicians, not the non-religious majority.Worth noting that over the past 20 years none of our Prime Ministers have been atheist - three are overtly practicing Christians (Blair, Brown and May) who see their faith as critical to their work. So representative of about 5% of the population. The fourth, Cameron, is probably more representative of the general UK population - brought up CofE, largely non practicing but not an atheist.
Not sure you can lay the blame for the current problems in the UK at the door of the atheists.I'm absolutely sure that you can't, though true to form that won't stop Vlad trying it on anyway. It's a matter of surprise to me that he didn't mention secular humanism. He usually does.
Worth noting that over the past 20 years none of our Prime Ministers have been atheist - three are overtly practicing Christians (Blair, Brown and May) who see faith as critical to their work.Hm, looks like it. Iraq war, hundreds of thousands dead or maimed, stripping the disabled of benefits ... critical to their work indeed.
It works for various Muslims, even if it doesn't work for you. Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted. It doesn't mean that the meaning can be anything - there is usually broadly agreed consensus on the meaning but you can have dissenting opinions. And it is always possible that individuals can apply a verse to a situation where they would need to make all kinds of assumptions and provisos to make it fit - you can't stop someone from having a punt. The Quran is an inspiring (to Muslims) message but like legal statutes there are no guarantees that the person interpreting the message has understood correctly and often the people who drafted the law are long dead so cannot be consulted on what they meant. The Quran is much less specific or detailed than statutes and like anything made up of sentences in verse for, it requires interpretation . The Quran might not work for you as a source of inspiration and guidance - fair enough.
If you are interested this article may shed some light ( extract quoted below):
https://muslimmatters.org/2011/06/28/saying-“i-don’t-know”-is-half-of-knowledge/
Imam Malik ibn Anas was one of the most respected scholars of fiqh who ever lived. Once a man came to Imam Malik from a very far distance and he asked him 40 questions. Imam Malik only answered four of them and for the rest of the 36 questions he replied, “I don’t know.”
The man was surprised and asked Imam Malik “what should I tell people about these 36 questions for which you said (I don’t know)?” Imam Malik replied that the man should tell the people that Malik says: “I don’t know,” “I don’t know,” “I don’t know.”
Imam Malik said this 3 times....
....I really feel apprehensive when people issue such fatawa without having adequate knowledge about Arabic grammar, the principles of fiqh, usool ul hadeeth, etc. Before issuing any fatwa, or any judgment for that matter, one must know the related principles and modalities. Issues that appear very simple are often times surprisingly grave, especially when we consider the implications of changing them. Let me give an example with the following ayah of the Quran in which Allah (SWT) says:
“ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَٱرۡكَعُواْ مَعَ ٱلرَّٲكِعِينَ وَأَقِيمُواْ ”
“And establish prayer, and give the zakaah, and bow down with those who bow down”
Surah Al-Baqarah: vs. 43
Anyone who has even a basic understanding of Arabic grammar would know that the verb أَقِيمُواْ in the above verse is a fi’l amr, which is used for a command, and whenever such a verb is used it is an obligation to act upon it. From this ayah, the scholars interpret that salaah is obligatory, as the ayah clearly says:
وَأَقِيمُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ
And establish the prayer…
And according to the same ayah, zakaat is also obligatory as the ayah says:
تُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَوَءَا
And give the zakaah…
Furthermore, we learn that salaah with jama’ah is also obligatory as the ayah says:
وَٱرۡكَعُواْ مَعَ ٱلرَّٲكِعِينَ
And bow down with those who bow down
Now a question arises here. Do we interpret from this ayah that it is obligatory to offer sunnah, nawaafil and witr in jama’ah also? Since the ayah itself does not seem to indicate any exception. I doubt that any of us would think that it is mandatory to offer sunnah in jama’ah. So why is there a difference?
but the reasons why bad things happen didn't require convoluted, dancing on the head of a pin-type arguments that those that believe in a loving god need to engage in.I don't think you could have read Hillside on morality then.
.
I'm absolutely sure that you can't, though true to form that won't stop Vlad trying it on anyway. It's a matter of surprise to me that he didn't mention secular humanism. He usually does.The disaster of Brexit is pretty well the biggest challenge facing the country.
You introduced the concept of 'better' - 'wrong' is a state not as good as the situation that you claim obtains now. It's not usually a problematic concept.I introduced the concept of better because it's an improvement on what I was doing before but to me it doesn't follow that what I was doing was wrong.
Which was what?
Following Islamic practice doesn't work for me without putting God into it - I don't get the beneficial effect I am afterwithout putting God into it. Annoying but like I said, the benefits for me outweigh the annoyance. I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheist and the sense of direction and structure and the way belief changes my responses in certain situations is part of the reason why I manage my life better.
I can see no evidence for anything other than all have fallen short.
I don't think you could have read Hillside on morality then.Except nobody argues that.
I can see no evidence for anything other than all have fallen short. Some people may call that pessimistic but it's not nearly as self righteous as ''Religion, root of all evil'' (grudging and butt covering question mark added)
Hm, looks like it. Iraq war, hundreds of thousands dead or maimed, stripping the disabled of benefits ... critical to their work indeed.Which brings us nicely to Stalin or Pol Pot Of course the thing is, not only did Stalin sanction atrocities but he had to have thousands upon thousands of littler atheists to help him.
The disaster of Brexit is pretty well the biggest challenge facing the country.Well that didn't take long:
Now I've not seen polling done on this (there may be - I will look), but I would suspect that the atheist population would be disproportionately Remain - not least because atheists tend to be demographically younger and better educated than the benchmark, and those groups were also much more likely to vote remain.
Vlad,Exactly my thought.
"Fallen short" of what?
Which brings us nicely to Stalin or Pol Pot Of course the thing is, not only did Stalin sanction atrocities but he had to have thousands upon thousands of littler atheists to help him.Now of course you have to demonstrate, showing your working, that Uncle Joe's little helpers did what they did because of or in the name of atheism rather than for other reasons (prominent amongst said reasons being not being kidnapped and/or tortured and/or worked to death and/or summarily executed by Uncle Joe).
Except nobody argues that.Dream on. Can I help it if antitheists don't have the balls not to put a question mark at the end?
Exactly my thought.Don't be soft this is hardly a world where everyone has done the right thing.
Dream on.I'll have to, since you can't seem to provide a single instance/example or name of anyone who says that religion is the root of all evil.
Can I help it if antitheists don't have the balls not to put a question mark at the end?You can't seem to help making stupid assertions that you can't substantiate with evidence. Repeatedly.
Don't be soft this is hardly a world where everyone has done the right thing.Right thing according to what?
Which brings us nicely to Stalin or Pol Pot Of course the thing is, not only did Stalin sanction atrocities but he had to have thousands upon thousands of littler atheists to help him.
Unfortunately May didn't have the same luxury of loads of little Christians helping her because we are now and increasingly a secular state.
Don't be soft this is hardly a world where everyone has done the right thing.
Vlad,According to the outcomes Hillside. God knows Antitheists aren't averse to pointing to those when religious evil is pointed out, you among them. To argue that only the religious have got it wrong is the
"The right thing" according to whom?
Which brings us nicely to Stalin or Pol Pot Of course the thing is, not only did Stalin sanction atrocities but he had to have thousands upon thousands of littler atheists to help him.Indeed they did - but their defining dogma wasn't atheism but totalitarian marxism. And part of that totalitarianism is denial of consensual choice about religion, so many of those 'littler atheists' as you call them may not have been atheists at all, but were required to pretend they were for threat of death or incarceration were they to suggest otherwise. And that cuts both ways - ask quietly and confidentially and 5% of the population in Saudi Arabia say they are atheist - they are unlikely to admit this publicly as the may be thrown in jail or even executed.
Indeed they did - but their defining dogma wasn't atheism but totalitarian marxism. And part of that totalitarianism is denial of consensual choice about religion, so many of those 'littler atheists' as you call them may not have been atheists at all, but were required to pretend they were for threat of death or incarceration were they to suggest otherwise.Wouldn't the much-vaunted (but actually considerably exaggerated and as it turns out temporary) bounce-back of religious adherence after the fall of Soviet communism bear this out?
And that cuts both ways - ask quietly and confidentially and 5% of the population in Saudi Arabia say they are atheist - they are unlikely to admit this publicly as the may be thrown in jail or even executed.I thought there was "no compulsion in religion"?
Well that didn't take long:Older people are more likely to claim CofE. I understand Dawkins and Copson recognise that and there is a campaign to stop them just putting CofE.
http://www.brin.ac.uk/2017/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/
Although this study didn't specifically ask about atheism, it includes a no religion group, which was disproportionately Remain, by 57% to 43%. No Christian group came close to this level of Remain support, and the big block of CoE/Anglicans were overwhelmingly Leave (60% to 40%). Muslims were the only religious group to be substantially Remain, but their numbers are pretty small so unlikely to sway a vote.
So you can conclude that the nightmare of Brexit may be laid squarely at the door of Christians overall, and CofE in particular.
According to the outcomes Hillside.
God knows…
…Antitheists aren't averse to pointing to those when religious evil is pointed out, you among them. To argue that only the religious have got it wrong is the
Rudolf Nuryev and margot Fonteyn of humbug positions.
That doesn't apply to young people,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of whom only 36% voted in the referenderum.If you are going to throw around figures - at least get them right.
Older people are more likely to claim CofE. I understand Dawkins and Copson recognise that and there is a campaign to stop them just putting CofE.Putting CofE on what?
Putting CofE on what?Any kind of official form that asks for religious affiliation, I guess. Though I can't say that I can recall the last time this happened to me ... if ever. I've just been in hospital and it was never asked or mentioned at any time.
So again, fallen short of what exactly?To have 'fallen short' there must be an agreed benchmark that has not been reached.
Vlad,If it's no one then right or wrong are effectively meaningless and you have to explain your behaviour and it's outcomes another way. You have excluded yourself from any further debate and you have no business using these terms.
But who gets to decide which outcomes are “the right thing”? You’re just kicking the can down the road here.
If it's no one then right or wrong are effectively meaninglessIncorrect.
Incorrect.Be my guest.
If it's no one then right or wrong are effectively meaningless and you have to explain your behaviour and it's outcomes another way. You have excluded yourself from any further debate and you have no business using these terms.
If nature decides then that is natural law and you can go onto lawgivers etc.
Explain why absolutism negates meaningful discussion on right and wrong rather than irrealism.
If there is no arbiter of morality and being a theist I am not suggesting a human arbiter then what meaning does right and wrong have then?
If it's no one then right or wrong are effectively meaningless and you have to explain your behaviour and it's outcomes another way. You have excluded yourself from any further debate and you have no business using these terms.You were asked who gets to decide.
Vlad,Complete nonsense. You have now moved onto aesthetics not morality.
You have quite the facility for combining the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy with flat out wrongness.
First, even if any of that was true it would tell you nothing whatever about a supposed objective morality.
Second, of course you can talk about right and wrong, just as you can talk about a painting being beautiful or not beautiful,
You were asked who gets to decide.Whatever the moral authority is if you say there isn't one then you have absolutely no right to ever arbitrate in what is right or wrong. because you have suggested it is just something pulled out of your arse.
Answer the question please.
Whatever the moral authority is if you say there isn't one then you have absolutely no right to ever arbitrate in what is right or wrong. because you have suggested it is just something pulled out of your arse.I assume this is Vladese for 'morality is subjective'? Nothing new to many of us.
Complete nonsense. You have now moved onto aesthetics not morality.
Suggesting there is no moral consequence too.
That right and wrong become more than just aesthetics to you particularly when it comes to the religious just shows this is your weakest suit.
Whatever the moral authority is if you say there isn't one then you have absolutely no right to ever arbitrate in what is right or wrong. because you have suggested it is just something pulled out of your arse.
Vlad,But it's the Burton and Taylor of bad analogy Hillside because it isn't productive in any sense.
Because that’s how analogies work.
...apparently there's a difference.Faith is going as far as reason and evidence takes you, and then going a bit further in the same direction.
Could someone have a go at explaining what it might be please?
Thanks.
Whatever the moral authority is if you say there isn't one then you have absolutely no right to ever arbitrate in what is right or wrong. because you have suggested it is just something pulled out of your arse.The question was for you to answer so stop trying to turn it round to others.
Faith is going as far as reason and evidence takes you, and then going a bit further in the same direction.On what grounds?
Faith is going as far as reason and evidence takes you, and then going a bit further in the same direction.
What you call blind faith and I'd call superstition is believing on no evidence or reason, or even contrary to reason.
But it's the Burton and Taylor of bad analogy Hillside because it isn't productive in any sense.
A better analogy is maths where there is also a right and wrong and when we use it in life it has consequences.
Faith is going as far as reason and evidence takes you, and then going a bit further in the same direction.
What you call blind faith and I'd call superstition is believing on no evidence or reason, or even contrary to reason.
The question was for you to answer so stop trying to turn it round to others.Given that your approach is the equivalent of putting those colourful plastic magnetic numbers and symbols you can get from the early learning centre. i.e. sticking them in any order you fancy your demand is like asking somebody using maths to show their working out.
So we seem to be making some progress - you seem to be implying that some 'moral authority' gets to decide on what is right and wrong.
But you are only answering half the question - you have failed to tell us who or what that 'moral authority' is. So please enlighten us.
Vlad,It's an analogy.
Oh dear. Analogies don't have to be productive to be appropriate. Finding looking for logic in your posts to be like looking for a needle in a haystack for example is still a valid analogy, whether or not you think it to be a productive one.
Wrong again. Maths is investigable in an objective sense. How though would you propose to find the objective truth or otherwise of a moral statement, any more than you would an aesthetic one?
It's an analogy.
Your view of morality offers no moral arbitration.
Vlad,And that from a guy who thinks that aesthetic taste is a better one.
No it isn't, or at least not a cogent one.
See whether you can work out why.
Vlad,Yeh, it means that people are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are. its big, it's minty with brown stripes and it's humbug, Hillside.
And yet strangely "moral arbitration" happens all the time
And that from a guy who thinks that aesthetic taste is a better one.
Yeh, it means that people are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are. its big, it's minty with brown stripes and it's humbug, Hillside.
Vlad,Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.
Yep. Do I really need to explain why?
Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.
Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.
Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.Once again your cart seems to be leading the horse. The phenomenon you describe is certainly an indication of how seriously we take morality, but doesn't actually refute the position that morality is subjective and much akin to aesthetic judgements/preferences. If that were the case there'd be no disagreement on moral matters (you may have noticed that there is) - and therefore no crime, ultimately.
Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.
Was there an answer to that forthcoming.
But you are only answering half the question - you have failed to tell us who or what that 'moral authority' is. So please enlighten us.
Was there an answer to that forthcoming.
An actual answer as opposed to a tortuous, twisty tour of tawdry tedium trying to turn truth to trickery?
Well that didn't take long:I hope this information could be, will be, promoted all over the internet!
http://www.brin.ac.uk/2017/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/
Although this study didn't specifically ask about atheism, it includes a no religion group, which was disproportionately Remain, by 57% to 43%. No Christian group came close to this level of Remain support, and the big block of CoE/Anglicans were overwhelmingly Leave (60% to 40%). Muslims were the only religious group to be substantially Remain, but their numbers are pretty small so unlikely to sway a vote.
So you can conclude that the nightmare of Brexit may be laid squarely at the door of Christians overall, and CofE in particular.
I hope this information could be, will be, promoted all over the internet!And can it mention Giles Fraser and that 64% of young people couldn't be arsed to vote and how many of those were non religious?
And can it mention Giles Fraser and that 64% of young people couldn't be arsed to vote and how many of those were non religious?Stop lying - 64% of 18-14 year olds DID vote.
Stop lying - 64% of 18-14 year olds DID vote.Whoops my mistake. It looks like I was wwwrroo........It looks like I was wwwroon......it looks like I was wwwwooooooooorrrorrrrrnnnnnn. It looks like I was
Stop lying - 64% of 18-14 year olds DID vote.Don't you mean 64% of 18-14 year olds don't have the vote?
It looks like I was wwwwwwooooooorrrrrrrnnnnnngggg.
Whoops my mistake. It looks like I was wwwrroo........It looks like I was wwwroon......it looks like I was wwwwooooooooorrrorrrrrnnnnnn. It looks like I was
wwwwwwooooooorrrrrrrnnnnnngggg.
Yeh, it means that people are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are. its big, it's minty with brown stripes and it's humbug, Hillside.
Vlad,Hillside, I have exposed the manifest and manifold contradictions within moral irrealism and subjective morality regarding morality as a matter of taste...we need to move on now.
Another contender for your new tagline, or do you intend actually to tell us who these mysterious "people" might be?
I hope this information could be, will be, promoted all over the internet!
Hillside, I have exposed the manifest and manifold contradictions within moral irrealism and subjective morality regarding morality as a matter of taste...we need to move on now.
Don't you mean 64% of 18-14 year olds don't have the vote?No
Gabriella,It's not a false comparison because the common factor is the people who are interpreting inputs in both scenarios. I asked you what your theory was on how a religious text could be understood without interpretation and you did not seem to have an answer. Do you have an answer now?
First, the comparison of religious texts with legal instruments is a false one. For the former, no-one doubts that the legislators existed at all and (depending on the jurisdiction involved) that their laws should be be enacted and enforced. None of that though applies to religious texts, at least until and unless someone can demonstrate the lawmaker to be a fact rather than a faith belief.
Second, lots of beliefs in lots of things “work” for lots of people. We were discussing though the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. If you want to treat the “holy” text that inspires you as others treat the works of, say, Plato or Sophocles that’s fine. Perhaps they’re interesting, perhaps they help you think, perhaps they provide ideas and guidance you find to have practical use. You are though entirely unencumbered by the notion that you can’t disagree with them, reject them entirely, move on to other texts that seem more coherent or logical to you. You have in other words no concerns about the supposedly divine status of the author.
Now compare that with your relationship with the Quran. Do you see the difference?
It's not a false comparison because the common factor is the people who are interpreting inputs in both scenarios.
I asked you what your theory was on how a religious text could be understood without interpretation and you did not seem to have an answer. Do you have an answer now?
I wasn't discussing the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. What's the point of discussing that because there is no method to know if something is authored divinely so the truth can't be established. There is only a belief that it was authored divinely. Regardless of the belief, interpretation is the only method I have of understanding or incorporating the text (and all the scholars' subsequent interpretations) into my thought process.
No - I don't see the difference. If I disagree with the Quran I will not practise the bits I disagree with. Lots of Muslims don't practise everything they think they should be doing as Muslims. The Quran is providing a message for a way of life - and I may not want certain parts of the way of life I think the practices will lead to.
It's not a question of not believing in the divine authorship, it's just a matter of not being willing to give up or do what you need to do to practise the message, or it's that I think my practice is not going to lead to what I think was the intended outcome, because other people are preventing the intended outcome by their behaviour. Interpretation and decision-making, religious or otherwise, involves analysing and predicting costs and benefits to behaviour. For example, some women will think the costs or down-side of restricting their movements or freedom to go where they want e.g. by having women only times at the gym or women only toilets is worth the benefit e.g. the peace of mind that comes from less opportunities to be stared at or sexually assaulted. Other women will consider the downside of restricted movements and freedom is too high a price to pay for the benefit - they want to go to the gym when it is convenient and they want to interact with men. This process of decision-making is part of the reason why religious practice varies so much.
Gabriella,No it isn't because the point was that both require interpretation.
Yes it is because one assumes a divine (and therefore inerrant) author and the other does not.
It could be understood without interpretation if it was written unambiguously I supposeAssertion dismissed. How do you understand something without interpreting it?
but that’s not the issue – if you want to claim that an inerrant set of instructions exists at all, what would be the point of it in any case if there was no means of knowing with certainty what the divine author intended them to mean?The point of it is to interpret it.
Again of course that’s just a belief, but what use has that belief when the only available meaning is that which you (and others) are capable of bringing to the text?Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.
Are you saying here that, if you interpret the Quran to mean one thing but you don’t like it you’re content to disobey the rules as you understand them of its (divine and therefore inerrant) author? That you know better (or perhaps don’t, but you’re prepared to take your chances)? Well, that makes you unusual I’d have thought but fair enough.Yes. No, not that unusual. I don't know any Muslims who practise everything.
No doubt, but essentially you’re telling me that you treat the Quran as a sort of self help book or maybe as you would the latest Delia Smith. When bits seem useful you’ll take them, and when not you’ll do something else. It’s a bit like a Christian telling me that he ignores all the god stuff in the Bible, but finds the bits about goat husbandry of practical use. Which is fine and dandy if you do find those things to be helpful, but I don’t see what relevance any claims of religious content have to do with it.Yup. So do lots of Muslims. Religious content helps - as I have explained before the belief in God bit changes your outlook and choices. E.g. I would not pray or fast for Ramadan or not drink alcohol without the religious element.
Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.
Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.
No it isn't because the point was that both require interpretation.
Assertion dismissed. How do you understand something without interpreting it?
The point of it is to interpret it.
Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.
Yes. No, not that unusual. I don't know any Muslims who practise everything.
Yup. So do lots of Muslims. Religious content helps - as I have explained before the belief in God bit changes your outlook and choices. E.g. I would not pray or fast for Ramadan or not drink alcohol without the religious element.
Kudos for best alliteration of the year.
Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.But the repercussions of behaviour that is considered not to be moral is an entirely societally driven phenomenon. This is achieved either at group/societal level through effects ranging from peer disapproval through to legal sanction. At an individual level this is driven by personal conscience/guilt, but that in itself is a product of accepted societal norms.
It's not a false comparison because the common factor is the people who are interpreting inputs in both scenarios. I asked you what your theory was on how a religious text could be understood without interpretation and you did not seem to have an answer. Do you have an answer now?
Because if, as has been stated, the religious text, the Bible, is the "revealed word of God", why would it require any interpretation by mere mortals?I think a lot of people's programmes have been altered by the bible.
I would suggest that the answer, put simply, is so that it can be shown to be whatever the "interpreter" wants it to be in order to fit the interpreters programme. Whatever that programme might be.
Gabriella,No it isn't.
Yes it is, sometimes catastrophically so because when some people (though not it seems you) think they know what a god wants (really know, untroubled by the doubts that the limits of interpretation would bring) then they will act on it. And sometimes what this god wants it seems is flying aeroplanes into buildings.
Now compare that with secular rules and instructions.
It’s a pretty arid discussion and ultimately everything has to be “interpreted” in the sense that, say, “2+2=4” has to be read and understood – ie, “interpreted” – at least to have meaning. I was merely suggesting that ambiguity increases the need for interpretation and vice versa. Why then would a god not make his rules as unambiguously written as possible so as to minimise the risk of misinterpretation?Because morality and the individual circumstances of people's lives are far more complex than 2+2=4. Was that a serious question that you really needed me to explain the answer to?
That’s not the point at all. You can interpret from here to doomsday if you like, but still all you’d have is whatever your ability to interpret gives you. Even if there is a certain meaning at the end of that rainbow, it would still be pointless in the absence of a means of knowing you’d ever found it. That’s the point.It is what it is. I have what I believe is a divinely authored text to interpret so I'll get on with the business of interpreting it with my limited abilities, as will every other individual who believes it to be a divinely authored text, and given that there are a wide range of abilities based on nature and nurture and political and environmental factors etc, I would expect to see a wide range of interpretations, but we share the core belief iin a monotheistic concept of God that has communicated with us through messengers.
That’s nice for you, but how does thinking that help you “base your interpretation” any more than a non-divinely authored text would. In other words, what relevance does it have?Believing in a God and Day of Judgement after death where you are held divinely accountable even if you escape accountability while alive could change your outlook and decision-making in certain situations.
That wasn’t the question. I was asking you whether you’d be content to behave one way even though your interpretation told you that Allah wanted you to behave a different way.Content? Depends what you mean by content. It might trouble me - if I thought I definitely should be doing it I might feel guilty e.g. when I miss a prayer. If I thought it shouldn't apply in a particular situation then I might wonder whether I was making the correct choice out of all the possible choices, and I would try to figure out what my motivation for my choice was. If I thought I was just finding excuses because I found it too hard in this instance to practise something I might feel a bit guilty and think maybe my resolve will increase in the future.
Why not? If on the one hand you think it’s just a useful self help book that causes you to think on a cost/benefit basis about issues like going to the gym on women only day, why does fasting and teetotalism fall outside of that paradigm in some way? What does the belief in god change?A sense of accountability. And then when I practise fasting and teetotalism I get so much benefit from it that I am glad I have a reason that makes it easy to compel myself to do it. The kids say the same thing - they are so glad they have the Muslim thing to fall back as an easier way to get themselves out of the pressure to drink alcohol than just using will power with no religious narrative.
Because if, as has been stated, the religious text, the Bible, is the "revealed word of God", why would it require any interpretation by mere mortals?My understanding of Islamic belief is that we will be judged on our interpretations and our programmes.
I would suggest that the answer, put simply, is so that it can be shown to be whatever the "interpreter" wants it to be in order to fit the interpreters programme. Whatever that programme might be.
I think a lot of people's programmes have been altered by the bible.And far, far more haven't. Given that humans have been around on this planet for about 300,000 years.
And far, far more haven't. Given that humans have been around on this planet for about 300,000 years.Non sequitur to the points either Owlswing and my response were making.
Non sequitur to the points either Owlswing and my response were making.We're they pre or post-fall?
Are you suggesting that these far, far more were fully signed up members of the Neolithic secular society?
We're they pre or post-fall?eh?
Non sequitur to the points either Owlswing and my response were making.No - why on earth would you think that.
Are you suggesting that these far, far more were fully signed up members of the Neolithic secular society?
But there is no evidence to support any religion, imo.Evidence? Arguments? Refutations of the arguments for belief? "imo" is not an argument!
Evidence? Arguments? Refutations of the arguments for belief? "imo" is not an argument!
No - why on earth would you think that.I'm not engaging in classic perceptional bias at all. Owlswing suggests that there are people who interpret the bible according to there own personal programmes and I say that people have had their programmes altered by the bible. I make no allusion to how long the bible has been around.
The point is that you are engaging in classic perceptional bias, believing certain elements have greater influence merely because of time and place of existence. So humans have been around for 300,000 years - only for about 8000 years has the bible had any influence, as it didn't exist before them. And for most of that period its influence was highly restricted to a tiny proportion of the population in a tiny geographic region of the planet.
Sure, over the past 1000 years or so the bible has had a big influence over a sizeable proportion of the population, but that influence seems already to be on the wane.
So lets imagine humans hang around on the earth for another 300,000 years and we look back at the influence of the bible over that entire 600,000 years - I suggest blink and you'll miss it.
Have you got any verifiable evidence to support the existence of a god?Everything that exists must have a pre-existant cause. In order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused causer, existing outside time, and that is God.
Everything that exists must have a pre-existant cause. In order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused causer, existing outside time, and that is God.
Millions of people have had profound religious experiences.
If there is no God, and we got to where we are solely by evolution, then our thoughts and reasonings are no more than the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which didn't evolve to enable us to do abstract reasoning, so strict atheism is an argument against the possibility of arguments.
The appearance of design in nature.
The incredibly fine tuning of the universal constants necessary for human life - or indeed any life - to evolve.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
I don't accept the validity of most of those arguments myself, but they are fairly well-known ones. How about having a go at refuting them? BTW, pointing to completely different arguments against God's existance, such as suffering, is not a refutation of any of these arguments, so don't try it.
I'm not engaging in classic perceptional bias at all.I beg to differ - your comment:
Owlswing suggests that there are people who interpret the bible according to there own personal programmes and I say that people have had their programmes altered by the bible.And in this regard I agree with you both - there is a two way relationship between the individual and the dogma contained in the bible - such that individuals may be influenced by the bible, but may also use the bible to support their own pre-existing programme. Actually this isn't really unique or unusual and it is actually a manifestation of the evolving relationship between the individual and society. Exactly the same evolution that sees societal moral norms shift over time.
Gods are entities created by humans to explain what has not yet been explained, imo. I suspect when science does eventually discover the definitive truth behind it all, no 'supernatural' entity will have been involved. Of course I could be wrong, I hope I am not..
I beg to differ - your comment:Wrong. Since the only comparison being made is between those who fit the bible to suit their programme (owlswings theory.) and those whose programmes change to fit the bible. There is no allusion to anyone outside those groups.
'I think a lot of people's programmes have been altered by the bible.'
Give the impression that somehow the bible is somehow pre-eminent in driving people's programmes. That is without doubt perceptional bias
Wrong. Since the only comparison being made is between those who fit the bible to suit their programme (owlswing.) and those whose programmes change to fit the bible. There is no allusion to anyone outside those groups.If you say so - that was not my interpretation of your comment.
.
I'm sorry Floo but this line of argument is what is referred to as scientism and that can't be.....not because of the truth or falsity of it but because Hillside stated to me that there is nobody on this forum who argues like you.
That aside, it's fair enough adding 'IMO' to what you say.
I suppose even scientists and atheists might disagree with you eon the pretext that science is a methodology and doesn't actually establish scientism which is a kind of philosophical naturalism.
What you are saying is that an entity can be completely explained by what is in it. Philosophers and scientists and theists and atheists who oppose this say that this is not possible, Secondly there are two issues which science has to answer which it has not shown much aptitude for and that is the universe has either always been or it popped out of nothing. The arguments against science having the ability to ever answer these questions overwhelms that that science will solve them.
If you believe science will someday solve these problems then that is i'm afraid a faith.
No it isn't.
Ok I compare it to Stalin, Hiroshima, the Killing Fields, Vietnam, 2 world wars, invasion of Iraq despite UN resolution that did not authorise according to the UN, collateral damage despite laws to the contrary, pre-emptive strikes despite laws requiring imminent threat - the list is endless. Lots of dead civilians in each of these incidents, often in excess of the deaths of 9/11. What 's so special about 9/11?
Because morality and the individual circumstances of people's lives are far more complex than 2+2=4. Was that a serious question that you really needed me to explain the answer to?
It is what it is. I have what I believe is a divinely authored text to interpret so I'll get on with the business of interpreting it with my limited abilities, as will every other individual who believes it to be a divinely authored text…
…and given that there are a wide range of abilities based on nature and nurture and political and environmental factors etc, I would expect to see a wide range of interpretations, but we share the core belief iin a monotheistic concept of God that has communicated with us through messengers.
Believing in a God and Day of Judgement after death where you are held divinely accountable even if you escape accountability while alive could change your outlook and decision-making in certain situations.
Content? Depends what you mean by content.
It might trouble me - if I thought I definitely should be doing it I might feel guilty e.g. when I miss a prayer. If I thought it shouldn't apply in a particular situation then I might wonder whether I was making the correct choice out of all the possible choices, and I would try to figure out what my motivation for my choice was. If I thought I was just finding excuses because I found it too hard in this instance to practise something I might feel a bit guilty and think maybe my resolve will increase in the future.
A sense of accountability. And then when I practise fasting and teetotalism I get so much benefit from it that I am glad I have a reason that makes it easy to compel myself to do it. The kids say the same thing - they are so glad they have the Muslim thing to fall back as an easier way to get themselves out of the pressure to drink alcohol than just using will power with no religious narrative.
And in English? ::)You're a faith head in the prophetic Church of Science will discover everything.
My understanding of Islamic belief is that we will be judged on our interpretations and our programmes.
BHS' view on the effect of a religious belief seems to involve not interpreting religious text.
Hence I was asking BHS for his theory on how a person's brain understands text and applies it to their own unique set of circumstances that have not been described in the Bible, without using some mechanism of interpretation.
I was asking him if there is any evidence for some objective meaning that floats around in the sky and only descends on the person at the time they open the Bible and causes thoughts to spring into their minds so they don't need to engage their brain to understand, interpret and apply what they are reading to their own situation?
Everything that exists must have a pre-existant cause. In order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused causer, existing outside time, and that is God.
Millions of people have had profound religious experiences.
If there is no God, and we got to where we are solely by evolution, then our thoughts and reasonings are no more than the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which didn't evolve to enable us to do abstract reasoning, so strict atheism is an argument against the possibility of arguments.
The appearance of design in nature.
The incredibly fine tuning of the universal constants necessary for human life - or indeed any life - to evolve.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
I don't accept the validity of most of those arguments myself, but they are fairly well-known ones.
How about having a go at refuting them? BTW, pointing to completely different arguments against God's existance, such as suffering, is not a refutation of any of these arguments, so don't try it.
You're a faith head in the prophetic Church of Science will discover everything.
Science hasn't done too badly so far, and in the future may well discover what isn't possible to ascertain at present.
Science hasn't done too badly so far, and in the future may well discover what isn't possible to ascertain at present.And i'm sure it will carry on explaining the universe in terms of things inside the universe. The nothing out of which the universe may have popped out or an infinitely old universe not falling easily into those categories since where is the evidence?
Gabriella,No it isn't.
Yes it is. What you’re talking about here is the effect of dogma – the belief that you’re so right about something that you can’t be wrong, so you act accordingly. While religious faith is clearly a major source of dogmatic belief that’s not for one moment to say that there aren’t others.
Yes, because (as I suspect you know) it was just to illustrate the difference between ambiguous and unambiguous statements. If I was an all-knowing and beneficent god, why would I frame my rules with such remarkable vagueness that they’d need millennia of interpretation and re-interpretation to fathom out, and even then with no means of knowing whether we'd ever got there?Because as I explained before, moral rules tend to be complex and ambiguous and need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. I'm fine with the ambiguity, you're not.
Not “every other individual at all”. Far from it. Some of those individuals it seems don’t recognise their own “limited abilities”, and then act on their certainty. That’s the problem when faith beliefs about an inerrant god meet human frailty – only if you think there are ultimate rights and wrongs can you be in a position to think you've found them.Regardless of whether they recognise it or not, they have just interpreted and yes certainty is a problem with human beings, religious or otherwise. See above for examples of non-religious interpretations that lead to lots of dead people, far more than the 3000 odd in 9/11.
No doubt, but see above for why that’s a dangerous belief to have for the rest of us.Nothing to see other than that non-religious beliefs and non-religious certainty are dangerous for the rest of us and religious belief is not a special case.
I know – terrifying isn’t it? So what if your interpretation is that the Quran says clearly one thing, but you think that’s the wrong thing to do nevertheless?Terrifying? No - I do't feel terror. I think accountability is useful. I answered what I would do if I thought the Quran was wrong in my previous answer - I would do what I thought was right. As do lots of Muslims - that's why there are lots of different interpretations and re-workings and disagreement.
That’s not a problem for me if, say, I look askance at something Aristotle or Spinoza said because my judgement isn’t fettered by fear of a post mortem judgment.
How about you though?
It’s simple enough – would you do what your interpretation of the Quran told you to do, or would you do what you thought to be the better course of action?See above - and I'm not exceptional.
I was thinking more of when your interpretation told you that the Quran said to do one thing, and you thought it morally better to do something else.
Who wins, and why?
Bingo.No. There are no instructions in the Quran about flying planes into buildings.
You tell us that you see the book as a sort of self help manual – applying it is sometimes practically useful, and sometimes it’s not. (ie, the same as can be said of any such book, whether a philosophical treatise or for that matter a cook book (“Thanks for that Delia, but actually I prefer my cake with three eggs rather than two if it’s all the same to you”).)
But then you introduce the notion that “the belief in God bit changes your outlook and choices” because that belief “compels” you to do something you otherwise wouldn’t do.
Compels you to do something to do something you otherwise wouldn’t do.
Isn’t that exactly the argument I’ve been making all along about why the certainty of religious faith is such a bad thing? If even you feel “compelled”, then not having a Bailey’s before bed or flying a ‘plane into a building have exactly the same rationale.
Everything that exists must have a pre-existant cause.contradicts your second:
In order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused causer, existing outside time, and that is God.Whoops!
Millions of people have had profound religious experiences.Which is evidence for experiences rather than the existence of the content of them. (See also: phencyclidine; psychotic delusions).
If there is no God, and we got to where we are solely by evolution, then our thoughts and reasonings are no more than the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which didn't evolve to enable us to do abstract reasoning, so strict atheism is an argument against the possibility of arguments.Non sequitur.
The appearance of design in nature.Appearance only. Natural selection. See Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker especially.
The incredibly fine tuning of the universal constants necessary for human life - or indeed any life - to evolve.Weak anthropic principle:
Why is there something rather than nothing?Nothing is inherently unstable:
No it isn't.
It's not the effect of dogma. It's the effect of certainty. You can't expect your dogma assertion to be taken seriously when you haven't posted evidence that dogma was involved in the decisions in the examples I gave and the numerous other examples that exist from history where lots more people were killed than in 9/11 - dropping a bomb on Hiroshima, invasion of Iraq etc, etc
Because as I explained before, moral rules tend to be complex and ambiguous and need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. I'm fine with the ambiguity, you're not.
Regardless of whether they recognise it or not, they have just interpreted and yes certainty is a problem with human beings, religious or otherwise. See above for examples of non-religious interpretations that lead to lots of dead people, far more than the 3000 odd in 9/11.
Nothing to see other than that non-religious beliefs and non-religious certainty are dangerous for the rest of us and religious belief is not a special case.
Terrifying? No - I do't feel terror.
I think accountability is useful. I answered what I would do if I thought the Quran was wrong in my previous answer - I would do what I thought was right. As do lots of Muslims - that's why there are lots of different interpretations and re-workings and disagreement.
For example I think the Quran is wrong on the inheritance rules - or rather when I say wrong, I can see a point to them such as keeping money in circulation amongst lots of different people with different ways it would be used and spent in the community, rather than all the money going to one person who might save most of it either in the form of cash or assets rather than keep the money circulating. Also it gives people an incentive to give money to people while they are still alive rather than leaving all their distributions for after they die.
But in current British society, with house prices so high, I think it would not produce a just outcome so my will was not done according to Islamic inheritance laws. Then people within the Muslim community came up with the interpretation that doing a will where your estate is held in trust is a way of being Sharia-compliant while also protecting the surviving spouse in a high cost of living economy. Plus it's great for tax planning. So I'm changing my will to include a trust. But other Muslims I know have just ignored the Quran's rule on inheritance and left everything to their spouse. They pray, fast etc but decided not to follow the rules on inheritance.
No. There are no instructions in the Quran about flying planes into buildings.
I might feel compelled when it comes to alcohol and prayer as that affects only me, and in a good way. Strangely enough, I don't feel compelled when it comes to committing mass murder or inheritance rules - because that affects other people.
Everything has a cause, except the thing that I don't want to have a cause, therefore it doesn't. Hey, I like this game.
Everything has a cause, except the thing that I don't want to have a cause, therefore it doesn't. Hey, I like this game.God? The votes were counted, the knives sharpened, the Turds polished, the P45 sent. The cactus was being packed into the cardboard box.....and then the reprieve came through from Professor Neil De Grasse Tyson. ''It was highly likely'' he said ''that we live in a universe which has been intelligently designed by a designer who is outside this universe''. God smiled, he had never turned his terminal off in years.
Also: our brains didn't evolve so that we could enjoy chocolate, hence, strict atheism is an argument against enjoying chocolate.
God? The votes were counted, the knives sharpened, the Turds polished, the P45 sent. The cactus was being packed into the cardboard box.....and then the reprieve came through from Professor Neil De Grasse Tyson. ''It was highly likely'' he said ''that we live in a universe which has been intelligently designed by a designer who is outside this universe''. God smiled, he had never turned his terminal off in years.
God? The votes were counted, the knives sharpened, the Turds polished, the P45 sent. The cactus was being packed into the cardboard box.....and then the reprieve came through from Professor Neil De Grasse Tyson. ''It was highly likely'' he said ''that we live in a universe which has been intelligently designed by a designer who is outside this universe''. God smiled, he had never turned his terminal off in years.
GHG,That's a sure fire statement that they haven't been.
All these arguments and assertions (and more) have been falsified here (and no doubt elsewhere) many times.
I know you are off on your little funk odyssey of the simulated universe but it's essentially irrelevant to the issue with the everything must have a cause except this argument and its flaws.It's not my funk odyssey. It's Neil De Grasse Tyson's.
That's a sure fire statement that they haven't been.You really do need to pay more attention, Vlad - they were in #755 ;)
It's not my funk odyssey. It's Neil De Grasse Tyson's.You are the one posting about it on this board, and it's still irrelevant to the discussion of the everything has a cause except this argument on this thread.
It's not my funk odyssey. It's Neil De Grasse Tyson's.
That's a sure fire statement that they haven't been.which statement by the same approach, would also be false.
Vlad,
Why are you traducing the man by suggesting he's making a case for theism?
To save Vlad the trouble:
'I am not traducing him, Hillside, that's being done by PZ Myers. You antitheists are at each others secular humanist throats with your sharpened turd polishers'
Gabriella,No it isn't. Second, of course it isn't dogma. Your dogma is certainty doesn't work. People can be dogmatic but as Islam has no geographical location with a person in a position of central authority to compel anyone to do anything, generalising by saying Islam is a dogmatic belief is an assertion that can be easily dismissed.
Yes it is.
First, dogma is certainty. That’s what it entails.
Second, of course dogma was involved – islam, Stalinism, Nazism etc are/were all varieties of dogmatic beliefs. Show me examples of atrocities that ensued from the writings of Spinoza or Russell or Einstein on the other hand and you'd have a point.
There are none.
Why do you think that might be?
You have that backwards of course. If you think that moral rules are written in book, then necessarily they must be simplified. I don’t, so I don’t have that problem.So we don't have a problem with uncertainty. Great.
And besides, it still fails to address the basic problems you just ignored – why is the "holy" text so vague when some clarity at least could have been achieved, and why not provide a method of some kind to validate whatever interpreting was done?I did not ignore it - I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make, other than that it doesn't make sense to you, which I think is fine that it doesn't make sense to you. So I answered what I thought you were asking. I don't think you asking me why again and again and me giving you my take on it is going to result in it ever making sense to you, but we can keep going with this if you want.
It’s a problem for those who think there to be definitive answers, and that dogmatic faith is an infallible means of finding them. Looking for non-religious examples of the same phenomenon doesn’t help you – it’s just a type of tu quoque.Your analogy does not work because polio and typhoid have 2 distinct causes and it is possible to eliminate the cause. Whereas you have failed in your attempt to show that religion is the unique cause of a problem that can be eliminated, as the same people who look for definitive answers will just find it in politics or nationalism or morals if religion didn't exist. So you would have all the same problems, just from a slightly different type of text or concept or idea.
Has anyone said that it’s “a special case”? If I had a cure for polio, would you criticise me for not having a cure for typhoid too?
Religion seems to me to be the biggest single source of dogmatic certainty these days, but that’s not to say that another one could never emerge again.In some places - yes. In other places it is politics.
But how then would this “accountability work” work when you’d broken the rules to follow your conscience (what makes you think you know better than a holy text?), and besides what of those who would act contrary to their consciences because they were concerned about this supposed judgment day? Do you think the 9/11 hijackers for example just happened to be a bunch of psychopaths, or did their dogmatic faith make them think they were behaving morally well?I don't know what you mean by how would this accountability work? Are you expecting me to come up with a methodology? As far as I know there isn't a text book and formulae. I'm ok with saying I don't know how it would work and that it's not my problem to determine the methodology.
Yes, much as catholics I know (who are otherwise devout) use contraception. It’s an odd cognitive dissonance – “these rules are god-made and therefore correct, but when it suits I’ll find an accommodation that allows me to persuade myself that I’m compliant with them even though my reasoning has to be casuistic”.Again, personally I'm fine with saying I don't know whether I made the right decisions but believing that I will eventually be held accountable by an inerrant god for my intentions and actions.
It seems to me too by the way that, if you want to claim an inerrant god, it would be odd to conclude too that he was inerrant only at the time the rules were written down, but hey – “He” couldn’t be expected to know what circumstances would apply in the future right?
C’mon – you’re better than that. The pious men who flew the ‘planes into the buildings didn’t think the Quran said anything about aeroplanes – there was plenty elsewhere they could rely on for that job.Another assertion - I'll just dismiss it until you add some detail and evidence.
YOU don’t, of course. But others did. And do. And it’s the “compelled” that’s the common denominator between you. The moment you step outside the parameter of, “this book is just a self-help manual that helps me think about the practical consequences of an action” to, “my belief in an inerrant god compels me to do something I wouldn’t otherwise do” what that “something” happens to be is a secondary issue.No, what that "something" happens to be is not a secondary issue and your generalisation is the problem. With or without a God there will be some people who are sure they are right, running around killing each other in the name of whatever cause they choose - they would just frame their cause in non-religious terms.
To put it another way, take “God” out of the Quran (or the Bible, or the Talmud) and there’s no problem – just treat these books as you would any other early and crude attempt at moral philosophy. Throw “God” into the mix though and you have certainty, and stir in some “faith” and the ordinary brakes of conscience and doubt are off.
That’s the problem here.
eh?
just like I am not suggesting there weren't pre-fall hominids but I think post fall Humans .......
My understanding of Islamic belief is that we will be judged on our interpretations and our programmes.
BHS' view on the effect of a religious belief seems to involve not interpreting religious text. Hence I was asking BHS for his theory on how a person's brain understands text and applies it to their own unique set of circumstances that have not been described in the Bible, without using some mechanism of interpretation.
I was asking him if there is any evidence for some objective meaning that floats around in the sky and only descends on the person at the time they open the Bible and causes thoughts to spring into their minds so they don't need to engage their brain to understand, interpret and apply what they are reading to their own situation?
You really do need to pay more attention, Vlad - they were in #755 ;)Re Stenger. Can you explain how the fallacy of fine tuning becomes the problem of fine tuning for Carroll. A view Massimo Pigliacci criticises Carroll for?
No it isn't. Second, of course it isn't dogma. Your dogma is certainty doesn't work. People can be dogmatic but as Islam has no geographical location with a person in a position of central authority to compel anyone to do anything, generalising by saying Islam is a dogmatic belief is an assertion that can be easily dismissed.
On the other hand, the other two examples you gave had central figures who had their secret police forces to compel people to do what they said or they would be killed. Stalinism in Russia had Stalin, Nazism in Germany had Hitler.
And you seem to have evaded the other outputs of non-religious laws I mentioned that resulted in far more deaths than 9/11 such as Hiroshima or the non-UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq. Why do you think you evaded them?
So we don't have a problem with uncertainty. Great.
I did not ignore it - I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make, other than that it doesn't make sense to you, which I think is fine that it doesn't make sense to you. So I answered what I thought you were asking. I don't think you asking me why again and again and me giving you my take on it is going to result in it ever making sense to you, but we can keep going with this if you want.
So my answer is The Quran is in poetry form. Poetry was popular in the region back then and people were impressed with poetry that rhymed, had rhythm and a message and sounded appealing when recited in Arabic. Poetry is not known for being a work of detailed instructions but it does impress people if it's good poetry and appeals to them. So the Quran is not presented to Muslims as the sole guidance for interpretation, we also have supposed reports of the thoughts and actions of people regarded as prophets.
Why don't you suggest a method that you think will work without creating ambiguity and I will give you my opinion on it.
The UN and various legislatures have tried creating laws without ambiguity and yet there are so many court cases because people think there is ambiguity in the text and there of course also so many law breakers. I have first-hand experience of volumes of dry tax legislation full of opportunities for loopholes and when they try and close one loophole they just create an opportunity to find another loophole.
Your analogy does not work because polio and typhoid have 2 distinct causes and it is possible to eliminate the cause.
Whereas you have failed in your attempt to show that religion is the unique cause of a problem…
…that can be eliminated, as the same people who look for definitive answers will just find it in politics or nationalism or morals if religion didn't exist. So you would have all the same problems, just from a slightly different type of text or concept or idea.
In some places - yes. In other places it is politics.
I don't know what you mean by how would this accountability work? Are you expecting me to come up with a methodology? As far as I know there isn't a text book and formulae. I'm ok with saying I don't know how it would work and that it's not my problem to determine the methodology.
Again, personally I'm fine with saying I don't know whether I made the right decisions but believing that I will eventually be held accountable by an inerrant god for my intentions and actions.
Another assertion - I'll just dismiss it until you add some detail and evidence.
No, what that "something" happens to be is not a secondary issue and your generalisation is the problem. With or without a God there will be some people who are sure they are right, running around killing each other in the name of whatever cause they choose - they would just frame their cause in non-religious terms.
Gabriella,I have not claimed that all religious people are good so not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Believing in Allah or believing that the advancement of science is good etc is not a problem. But committing a crime because you believe Allah wants you to or because you believe it is necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge is a problem, purely because it is the certainty of an individual that they are required to hurt someone else for a cause they believe in that is the problem.
Oh dear. Are you seriously suggesting that, in Islam, “Allah”, Mohammed being “a prophet”, the various miracle stories etc aren’t held to be true dogmatically – ie, certainly, with no possibility of doubt etc – by most of its adherents?
And while we’re at it, why would the absence of “a person in a position of central authority to compel anyone to do anything” even be necessary for dogmatism when your entire educational experience consisted of rocking backward and forward in a Madrasa chanting the Quran?
Oh, and while we’re at that…if you think there’s no-one to do the compelling you really haven’t been paying attention. Who for example do you think it is that have the job of carrying out fatwas, having a quiet word with apostates etc?
And the thugs who behead adulterers in football stadia, nail people to boards in public squares, throw gays off tall building etc would be who exactly? Girls Guides? The local branch of Mensa?
The only “evading” here is your own (why for example have you just ignored the question about why no-one ever committed an atrocity while reciting Spinoza or Russell?) but in any case I dealt with that when I explained that a tu quoque (“OK, my stuff may be bad but other stuff is too”) is itself an evasion, and besides the toll for, say, a Hiroshima may be bigger than that for 9/11 but it’s not for religion as a whole.I did not realise that that was a serious question. Firstly, I do not know if anyone has or has not committed atrocities in the name of specific philosophers and secondly, if they haven't it was probably because their philosophical texts were not intertwined in geo-political situations such as empire-building or expansionism or defence to protect national or self-interest. Whereas political and religious doctrines and technology are inter-twined with these but all of these are not a problem if they are not used for immoral purposes.
No you didn’t. Your position seems to be that the “holy” text may contain inerrant truths, but they have to be “interpreted”. I merely ask first why they’re written so vaguely, imprecisely, ambiguously if a divine author wanted anyone to know what the meant, and second what method you would use ever to eliminate the problem that whatever interpretation you have today wouldn’t be thrown over by a new one tomorrow.But as we already established I am ok with not having certainty. I think it is impossible to write unambiguous moral statements that will fit any circumstance. I also think it is impossible to stop an individual if they want to try to interpret a moral statement to apply to their situation. So I think going with some poetry and prompting people to think is an interesting way of delivering a message.
And if you don’t have a method to do that, why even bother with thinking that it’s divinely authored as you’re necessarily on a fool’s errand if you want ever to know for sure what this “God” meant by it?
I defer to no man in my affection for poetry. Again though, if a god wanted his rules to be known why do it in verse rather than just say, “here are the rules”? That is, if as you say “Poetry is not known for being a work of detailed instructions” why would a didactic god care more about “impressing” people with his rhyming skills than he would about getting his rules over?
Been a while since you suggested a shifting of the burden of proof. I’m not the one claiming a god, let alone a morally inerrant one, let alone one who wanted people to know what he thought, let alone one who thought the best way to do that would be in some “impressive” versifying. I merely suggest that he went about things in a pretty crap way – why not at least give people a fighting chance by just writing down a list of dos and don’ts?See this is your mistake - you seem to think I am trying to prove my claim. I'm not. If you think it's crap good for you, don't believe in it. If you, on the other hand, want to make a claim that it is possible to make a moral rule that is not open to interpretation and will prevent terrorist acts feel free to prove your claim by demonstrating it.
Are you suggesting that this god of yours was no more capable a legal draughtsman than the UN legislators? And even if you are, why then would he even have bothered if he thought he wasn’t bright enough to come up with clearer rules but wanted to set out the vague ones instead?Not really sure what you are expecting here - I can't give you my opinion on this in any other way than I already have. My opinion has not changed since the last time you asked me this. If you disagree with my opinion on this, ok.
Whoosh! The analogy works because it’s just about the nature of the tu quoque fallacy. “Distinct causes” etc are irrelevant for the purposes of the analogy.The analogy doesn't work as my argument is that religion is not the cause, but that the certainty that killing people is justified is the problem. So I am not arguing that other stuff is bad as well as religion, I am arguing that religion is not the problem but religious extremists or any other type of extremists are a problem.
That’s called a straw man argument. Where exactly do you think that I said that “religion is the unique cause of a problem”? As you know, what I actually said was pretty much the opposite of that when I identified the problem as dogma in general, of which religion is a prime example but by no means a unique one.Ok and I disagree with your generalisation and think bad outcomes will be eliminated when people stop feeling certain that they are doing the right thing when they kill/ blow up other people. So religious or non-religious beliefs or dogma that do not include this type of thinking is fine.
You’re missing it still – deliberately perhaps? Yes, I do think societies that cease to privilege “faith” over just guessing will “eliminate” some bad outcomes, but I would say the same about faith in any other dogma too.
North Korea for example. Not the kind of certainty/faith bedfellow I’d want for a religious belief I subscribed to, but each to her own I guess.
It’s simple enough. So far as I can tell, you seem to think that there will be some sort of post mortem reckoning coming your way. I merely ask in principle how you think that would work when little old you had decided while still here that the Quran was wrong about something and so you'd acted instead according to your conscience.I think that if I did the wrong thing, I will be held accountable. Seems simple enough to grasp.
And the question you ignored was about whether you thought the 9/11 hijackers just happened to be a bunch of psychopaths, or were they rather pious men who thought the day of reckoning would go swimmingly for them because, regardless of their ordinary humanity, they’d acted as they thought their god wanted them to for which action they’d favourably be held “accountable”?I'm not sure what they thought or were - based on Bin Laden's subsequent open letter it's possible they thought they were fighting a war and therefore killing people in the Twin Towers was acceptable collateral damage in a war because Bin Laden argued that the American people's taxes and elections fund and allow the killing of Muslims. Bin Laden's letter justified the attack by saying the US had attacked first - he mentioned attacking Muslims in Palestine through the creation and support of Israel because he believed Palestine should have remained in the control of Muslims and he wanted revenge for the bloodshed in Palestine. Bin Laden also spoke about Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Lebanon, sanctions in Iraq killing Iraqi children and accused the US of stealing wealth and oil and militarily occupying and corrupting Muslim land and he said removing the governments in Muslim countries that act as agents for the US was an obligation so that Sharia Law can be supreme.
See above. Can you really not see that that “belief” if held to be dogmatically true is potentially disastrous when those who interpret the rules differently to the way you do act on their interpetations?Only if the dogmatically held belief is that it is ok to kill people to achieve your goals.
So when the cockpit recorders picked them up shouting “Allahu Akbar” that was what – co-incidence maybe?Nope - I disagree. I am not seeing the problem with the god part. I only see a problem with the certainty that you are right to kill people part to further your cause part.
Yes there will be, but that’s not the point. Of course the outcomes are secondary for this purpose – what we’re talking about here is what happens when you think certainly, dogmatically that there is a god who's written some inerrant rules and that “faith” is a guaranteed way to know what they are, then you’ve thrown out even the possibility of being reasoned out of that position.
And once you’ve got there, you can then populate your actions with whatever bits of the book take your fancy. Kill adulterers? Yeah, why not? Spread the Caliphate by whatever means necessary? Knock yourself out etc and depressingly etc.
God? The votes were counted, the knives sharpened, the Turds polished, the P45 sent. The cactus was being packed into the cardboard box.....and then the reprieve came through from Professor Neil De Grasse Tyson. ''It was highly likely'' he said ''that we live in a universe which has been intelligently designed by a designer who is outside this universe''. God smiled, he had never turned his terminal off in years.
Hillside, I have exposed the manifest and manifold contradictions within moral irrealism and subjective morality regarding morality as a matter of taste...we need to move on now.
BHSNo it isn't. Second, of course it isn't dogma. Your dogma is certainty doesn't work. People can be dogmatic but as Islam has no geographical location with a person in a position of central authority to compel anyone to do anything, generalising by saying Islam is a dogmatic belief is an assertion that can be easily dismissed.
On the other hand, the other two examples you gave had central figures who had their secret police forces to compel people to do what they said or they would be killed. Stalinism in Russia had Stalin, Nazism in Germany had Hitler.
And you seem to have evaded the other outputs of non-religious laws I mentioned that resulted in far more deaths than 9/11 such as Hiroshima or the non-UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq. Why do you think you evaded them?
So we don't have a problem with uncertainty. Great.
I did not ignore it - I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make, other than that it doesn't make sense to you, which I think is fine that it doesn't make sense to you. So I answered what I thought you were asking. I don't think you asking me why again and again and me giving you my take on it is going to result in it ever making sense to you, but we can keep going with this if you want.
So my answer is The Quran is in poetry form. Poetry was popular in the region back then and people were impressed with poetry that rhymed, had rhythm and a message and sounded appealing when recited in Arabic. Poetry is not known for being a work of detailed instructions but it does impress people if it's good poetry and appeals to them. So the Quran is not presented to Muslims as the sole guidance for interpretation, we also have supposed reports of the thoughts and actions of people regarded as prophets.
Why don't you suggest a method that you think will work without creating ambiguity and I will give you my opinion on it. The UN and various legislatures have tried creating laws without ambiguity and yet there are so many court cases because people think there is ambiguity in the text and there of course also so many law breakers. I have first-hand experience of volumes of dry tax legislation full of opportunities for loopholes and when they try and close one loophole they just create an opportunity to find another loophole.
Your analogy does not work because polio and typhoid have 2 distinct causes and it is possible to eliminate the cause. Whereas you have failed in your attempt to show that religion is the unique cause of a problem that can be eliminated, as the same people who look for definitive answers will just find it in politics or nationalism or morals if religion didn't exist. So you would have all the same problems, just from a slightly different type of text or concept or idea.
In some places - yes. In other places it is politics.
I don't know what you mean by how would this accountability work? Are you expecting me to come up with a methodology? As far as I know there isn't a text book and formulae. I'm ok with saying I don't know how it would work and that it's not my problem to determine the methodology.
Again, personally I'm fine with saying I don't know whether I made the right decisions but believing that I will eventually be held accountable by an inerrant god for my intentions and actions.
Another assertion - I'll just dismiss it until you add some detail and evidence.
No, what that "something" happens to be is not a secondary issue and your generalisation is the problem. With or without a God there will be some people who are sure they are right, running around killing each other in the name of whatever cause they choose - they would just frame their cause in non-religious terms.
Millions of people have had profound religious experiences.
Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?
Before you do, perhaps you should explain to us whether we need to honour our fathers and mothers or not (Jesus is recorded in certain texts as not thinking so, and for all we can tell, acting accordingly). Also, should we swear or not? Of course, I mean swearing oaths, not using bad language, because we can certainly deduce from your continued performance here that that's quite okay.You can deduce that I think it's either OK or I think its use might be the lesser of evils...not that it is cosmically OK. I think it's fair to say that Christian morality is centred around love rather than a handy group of rules.
There is of course room for metaphor in the appropriate interpretations, but who is the arbiter of which interpretations are correct?
Good find, grasshopper ;)
Quote from: Genial Harry Grout on October 16, 2017, 01:47:47 PM
Millions of people have had profound religious experiences.
Quote from: Genial Harry Grout on October 16, 2017, 02:02:01 PM
Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?
Good find, grasshopper ;)
You can deduce that I think it's either OK or I think its use might be the lesser of evils...not that it is cosmically OK. I think it's fair to say that Christian morality is centred around love rather than a handy group of rules.
I have not claimed that all religious people are good so not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Believing in Allah or believing that the advancement of science is good etc is not a problem. But committing a crime because you believe Allah wants you to or because you believe it is necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge is a problem, purely because it is the certainty of an individual that they are required to hurt someone else for a cause they believe in that is the problem.
Individuals who believe in Allah or Leprechauns or believe that science will provide a solution but don't believe their belief requires them to hurt other people are not a problem.
The rest of it - you don't seem to be able to join up the dots to form an actual argument against all religion rather than specific individuals in any of this so there is nothing to respond to, other than to agree that there are some bad people in the world and some of them are religious.
I did not realise that that was a serious question. Firstly, I do not know if anyone has or has not committed atrocities in the name of specific philosophers and secondly, if they haven't it was probably because their philosophical texts were not intertwined in geo-political situations such as empire-building or expansionism or defence to protect national or self-interest. Whereas political and religious doctrines and technology are inter-twined with these but all of these are not a problem if they are not used for immoral purposes.
And you are still evading the question I asked you. How are you ok with non-religious laws, given their ambiguity - why aren't you railing against how the UN could not produce a resolution that unambiguously ruled out the US led military invasion of Iraq, which resulted in thousands of deaths, but focusing on a 9/11. If you think it is possible to produce unambiguous moral rules, how come it hasn't be done, and instead we end up with so many court cases? Biased much.
But as we already established I am ok with not having certainty. I think it is impossible to write unambiguous moral statements that will fit any circumstance. I also think it is impossible to stop an individual if they want to try to interpret a moral statement to apply to their situation. So I think going with some poetry and prompting people to think is an interesting way of delivering a message.
See this is your mistake - you seem to think I am trying to prove my claim. I'm not. If you think it's crap good for you, don't believe in it. If you, on the other hand, want to make a claim that it is possible to make a moral rule that is not open to interpretation and will prevent terrorist acts feel free to prove your claim by demonstrating it.
I think there were some clear dos and don'ts such as don't commit adultery, don't bury alive your female children. It's just less clear when it comes to various other issues. Even without religion we seem to have invented the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" so fighting for your freedom against oppressors is morally acceptable in Islam but within limits.
Not really sure what you are expecting here - I can't give you my opinion on this in any other way than I already have. My opinion has not changed since the last time you asked me this. If you disagree with my opinion on this, ok.
The analogy doesn't work as my argument is that religion is not the cause, but that the certainty that killing people is justified is the problem. So I am not arguing that other stuff is bad as well as religion, I am arguing that religion is not the problem but religious extremists or any other type of extremists are a problem.
Ok and I disagree with your generalisation and think bad outcomes will be eliminated when people stop feeling certain that they are doing the right thing when they kill/ blow up other people. So religious or non-religious beliefs or dogma that do not include this type of thinking is fine.
I think that if I did the wrong thing, I will be held accountable. Seems simple enough to grasp.
I'm not sure what they thought or were - based on Bin Laden's subsequent open letter it's possible they thought they were fighting a war and therefore killing people in the Twin Towers was acceptable collateral damage in a war because Bin Laden argued that the American people's taxes and elections fund and allow the killing of Muslims. Bin Laden's letter justified the attack by saying the US had attacked first - he mentioned attacking Muslims in Palestine through the creation and support of Israel because he believed Palestine should have remained in the control of Muslims and he wanted revenge for the bloodshed in Palestine. Bin Laden also spoke about Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Lebanon, sanctions in Iraq killing Iraqi children and accused the US of stealing wealth and oil and militarily occupying and corrupting Muslim land and he said removing the governments in Muslim countries that act as agents for the US was an obligation so that Sharia Law can be supreme.
And his main interpretation in terms of Allah was "Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs."
I am assuming his interpretation is based on the battle described in the Quran (2:190-195) in Mecca, from where Muslims had previously been driven out, and the Quran states that the Muslims were allowed to kill people in battle and drive people out of the places where they had been driven out - which to me rules out New York since Muslims had not been attacked or driven out of there but in Bin Laden's interpretation New York was a legitimate target as revenge for attacks in Muslim countries. And in Bin Laden's interpretation he discarded any part of his religion that said don't transgress limits or murder women, children, non-combatants.
And then of course the cycle of revenge continued, with the Americans believing that morally they had a right to take revenge for 9/11 and Britain standing shoulder to shoulder while they decided to invade Iraq on some dodgy pretext and destroy the infrastructure and engineer the break down of security and order, claiming the UN resolution allowed them to do so, while other governments disagreed with their interpretation.
Only if the dogmatically held belief is that it is ok to kill people to achieve your goals.
Nope - I disagree. I am not seeing the problem with the god part. I only see a problem with the certainty that you are right to kill people part to further your cause part.
All of the standard apologist arguments seem to me post hoc rationalisations for people who believe in a god but want something that looks good when asked why. They seem rarely to be the reason that the individual believes. I can do the same for my non belief but truth was I just realised one day that I didn't believe and didn't really have any understanding of what was meant by the term god.
Fair enough, but that ends up all being a bit woolly, doesn't it? After all, there are supposedly four or five words for 'love' in koine Greek. Islam perhaps tends more in the 'handy group of rules' direction (Gabriella will no doubt put us right), but Christianity does have some very specific things to say on important matters which turn out to be very contradictory. The commandment is 'honour thy father and thy mother', which St Paul reiterates - whereas Jesus is recorded as saying "he who does not hate his father and mother cannot be my disciple"*. On the swearing of oaths matter, Jesus is recorded as saying "Do not swear at all", whereas the author of Hebrews reiterates the importance of the swearing of oaths, by indicating that when God swore to Abraham, having no one greater to swear by, swore by himself.Well not focussing on a set of rules does make very thing a bit harder and the words of Jesus can be jarring but it does help us from falling into legalism.
Going around demonstrating what you think of as 'love' may well be just a way of making yourself feel good in the eyes of your supposed creator. Even in the sense of 'agape' - the love devoid of self-interest: "She spent her life in the service of others - and you can tell the others by their hunted looks".
*Luke 14:26
Vlad,Every moral irrealist with a moral code.
Did you ever get around to telling us who those mysterious people who "are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are" might be, or do you intend to remain forever silent on the matter?
Ta.
Every moral irrealist with a moral code.
Gabriella,Then your list of failings of some religious people was irrelevant.
1. I never suggested that you did claim that all religious people are good, and nor would that be relevant even if I had.
2. The religion/science analogy fundamentally misses the point – people behave differently when they have dogma and certainty (religion) from the way they behave when they have provisionality and doubt (science). That's the point.Then you have missed my point. I was not comparing scientists and religious extremists. I was comparing beliefs - certainty in a belief that the end justifies the means in order to advance a scientific cause with the certainty in belief that the end justifies the means to advance a religious cause. For example the morally questionable decision by the US government to bring Nazi scientists to the US at the end of WW2 to develop biological weapons. The problem in both cases is not religion or science but people who have certainty of belief that the end justifies the means for the advancement of their particular cause – whether the cause is religious or scientific.
3. The dots are joined up – just ignoring the picture doesn’t help you here (about Islamic enforcers for example). The problem with “all religions” (all certain, dogmatic, faith-based belief systems in fact) is that people behave differently when they don’t think they could be wrong. It’s very simple.Just asserting that is pointless. We're back to you trying to generalise based on the actions of some Muslims. Islamic enforcers in ISIS territory do not apply to all the Muslims who are not subject to their enforcement. Lots of followers of Islam ignore fatwas as having zero authority or applicability to them.
Of course it’s serious – deadly serious. It’s essentially Christopher Hitchens’ famous challenge: “Name me a good deed done by a religious person that could not just as well have been done by an atheist. Now name me a bad deed done by a religious person that an atheist would have no reason even to contemplate”. The answers are “none” and “lots” respectively.Hitchens sounds confused. Is he focusing on the deed or the motivation for the deed? If he is trying to say atheists don’t commit bad deeds that some religious people commit, that's quite clearly false as atheists kill people. If he is trying to say atheists don’t commit bad deeds because of their atheism, then atheists don’t do good deeds because of their atheism either. Being an atheist is irrelevant so what is the point of the comparison?
Wrong again for the reasons I’ve explained to you several times now: it’s just a tu quoque; human laws make no claims to inerrancy; they’re a lot less ambiguous than they would be if they were set out in vague verse; if need be, the draughtsmen are often available to be asked what they meant etc.You’re missing the point. The Quran gives some moral principles – it is not a book of statutes.
You might think it “interesting” but it’s certainly suboptimal if you’re trying to set out some infallible rules, and why would it be impossible in any case for an omniscient god at least to have had a better stab at it than some vague versifying?It’s not impossible to put it in prose, it just isn’t in prose. A matter of taste – some people find moral principles in verse inspirational, some people prefer them in prose.
It’s not a mistake to point out that, while you personally don’t want to blow up anyone, privileging your faith beliefs over just guessing provides intellectual cover for those who do.That’s a nonsense argument. It’s similar to claiming that privileging some moral beliefs, which some people feel certain about, by enshrining them in law or through social norms provides intellectual cover for other moral beliefs you don’t like that some people feel certain about, so people should abandon enshrining moral beliefs in law.
And my “claim” is only that it’s clearly the case that it’s possible to set out moral rules that require less interpretation than some vague verses.Less interpretation? As I explained the Quran is a message, not a statute book. The message contains some moral principles. If you want to make a claim about less interpretation you would first have to figure out a way to quantify the interpretation in order to do a comparison and the burden of proof is on you to show that you have come up with a moral principle on fighting and war that gave rise to less interpretation. Otherwise your claim is dismissed.
“…don't bury alive your female children” eh? Good grief. Why on earth would you think that needs to be written down whereas, say, “sexual activity with children” does not?Because during the time it was claimed that Prophet Mohamed was delivering the message of the Quran, in 7th Century Arabia it was customary to bury girl infants because women were not valued.
As for the freedom fighter thing, well yes. That’s often a problem when you’re daft enough to think that morality is amenable to absolutism. If your defence is, “but it’s really hard to do” then why would a god who's not up to the job even bother trying in the first place?Bother trying to do what? Give moral guidelines in a message that we are supposed to interpret and apply to our individual circumstances? I think moral guidelines are a useful basis to develop a system of laws. I think laws are useful for societies.
I’m just suggesting that your explanations keep collapsing into incoherence or contradiction is all. If you want to use UN legislators for an analogy, then you’re also suggesting that your god is no better a legal draughtsman than they are.In other words you are admitting that you can’t or won’t understand my point that it is impossible to draft a law about fighting and war that cannot be open to interpretation due to the variation in circumstances in every situation that could lead to one set of people arguing that violence is justified whereas another set of people will argue that it is unjustified.
Then you’re arguing wrongly. “The problem” is beliefs that are held dogmatically and arrived at by faith. That’s the beginning and end of it. We can get to the content of those beliefs (ie, the only thing you want to talk about) some other time – what this is about is that when people are certain they’re right and they haven’t reasoned their way into that there’s no way to reason them out of acting accordingly. That’s why your analogy with science fails – science actively builds in falsification tests: “Here’s a tentative model that accords with experience, but if ever X happens then the model is wrong”. Religion on the other hand trades in “sures” and “certains”. Where for example in the Quran (or in any other "holy" text) does it say, “If X, then the conjecture “Allah’ would be falsified”? It doesn't do that precisely because it asserts its claims to be certain. Even the possibility of fallibiity is anathema.There is no automatic link between believing in Allah and believing Allah wants you to kill people. People believing in ghosts aren’t a problem and do not provide intellectual cover for people who kill someone because they are certain that person is possessed by a spirit. So the content of the belief that a person is certain about is the problem, not that they hold a belief.
Surely in your ontology it’s for the people (god?) holding you accountable to decide whether you did the wrong thing isn’t it, and it is simple to grasp only you keep avoiding it. Here it is again: If you decide that the holy book is wrong and follow your conscience instead, would you expect the deity holding you accountable to think you behaved well or badly?I would expect that it would not be a simplistic yes or no answer. Most decisions are a mix of “good” and “bad” intentions, so I would think the concept of accountability would not make sense unless the person holding me accountable (who presumably decides what is “good” and “bad”) judges it based on the details of the case. I would expect them to dissect my individual motives and actions and give me credit for “good” and debit for “bad” and determine where that left my balance overall.
No doubt, but the question was about “whether you thought the 9/11 hijackers just happened to be a bunch of psychopaths, or were they rather pious men who thought the day of reckoning would go swimmingly for them because, regardless of their ordinary humanity, they’d acted as they thought their god wanted them to for which action they’d favourably be held “accountable”?”Are you defining “can’t bring myself to say it” as someone who does not want to guess someone else’s mental health due to having insufficient information? I’m prepared to discuss Bin Laden’s thoughts as he appeared to have released a statement setting out his thoughts post 9/11, and we’ll just have to assume his thoughts were similar just before 9/11. Unless you want to point me to something said by the highjackers, I have no idea what they were thinking – but I can assume they were thinking the same thing as Bin Laden.
It sounds as though you’re leaning toward the latter but can’t bring yourself to say so. Is that right?
Then you need to look again. The problem being certainty is a principle. When you think that some things are certainly true and moreover that you know what those things are because of faith, that’s the problem.Nope. Certainty just indicates resolve. It’s a think positive attitude. It is only a problem depending on the circumstances and the belief and there is no problem arguing against specific beliefs based on their consequences while allowing other beliefs perceived as having benign consequences to exist.
Why? Because if you allow that to be respected as a position and privileged in the public square then you have no knowledge of what specific beliefs might at some time populate that paradigm and no way to argue against them when they do.
And that’s the problem.
I suppose the 'objective' Christian moral code permits lying and misrepresenting other people, on an industrial scale. How does this work, Vlad?Is lying a good or a bad thing Wigginhall? Careful now.
Is lying a good or a bad thing Wigginhall? Careful now.
Is lying a good or a bad thing Wigginhall? Careful now.I'm not sure.
BHSThen your list of failings of some religious people was irrelevant. Then you have missed my point. I was not comparing scientists and religious extremists. I was comparing beliefs - certainty in a belief that the end justifies the means in order to advance a scientific cause with the certainty in belief that the end justifies the means to advance a religious cause. For example the morally questionable decision by the US government to bring Nazi scientists to the US at the end of WW2 to develop biological weapons. The problem in both cases is not religion or science but people who have certainty of belief that the end justifies the means for the advancement of their particular cause – whether the cause is religious or scientific. Just asserting that is pointless. We're back to you trying to generalise based on the actions of some Muslims. Islamic enforcers in ISIS territory do not apply to all the Muslims who are not subject to their enforcement. Lots of followers of Islam ignore fatwas as having zero authority or applicability to them.
You have not demonstrated that a belief in God is a problem. You keep trying the argument that if you believe in God then anything goes but you have no evidence to justify it since quite clearly there are plenty of people who have a certain belief in God but who do not have a certain belief that killing people will please God.
That is where your argument fails because it is dependent on taking an individual person acting on a particular belief (killing to please God) and trying to use it to generalise about all faith beliefs, and you have no evidence to justify that generalisation. A person can believe with certainty in the concept of patriotism but they don’t all turn into George “either you are with us or with the terrorists” Bush – or Donald “get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired!” Trump, hence trying to argue that no one should believe in patriotism because there are some people who are certain they know what is acceptable behaviour to demonstrate patriotism is a non-starter as an argument.
Hitchens sounds confused. Is he focusing on the deed or the motivation for the deed? If he is trying to say atheists don’t commit bad deeds that some religious people commit, that's quite clearly false as atheists kill people. If he is trying to say atheists don’t commit bad deeds because of their atheism, then atheists don’t do good deeds because of their atheism either. Being an atheist is irrelevant so what is the point of the comparison?
You’re missing the point. The Quran gives some moral principles – it is not a book of statutes.
Fallible people are supposed to interpret the moral principles to develop a workable legal system to govern fallible people. It is inevitable that the a system run by fallible people will exhibit imperfections. It is impossible to word any principles about fighting and killing in a way that achieves justice but does not allow for variation of circumstance, which therefore makes interpretation necessary if the goal is to have a just outcome.
It’s not impossible to put it in prose, it just isn’t in prose. A matter of taste – some people find moral principles in verse inspirational, some people prefer them in prose.
That’s a nonsense argument. It’s similar to claiming that privileging some moral beliefs, which some people feel certain about, by enshrining them in law or through social norms provides intellectual cover for other moral beliefs you don’t like that some people feel certain about, so people should abandon enshrining moral beliefs in law. Less interpretation? As I explained the Quran is a message, not a statute book. The message contains some moral principles. If you want to make a claim about less interpretation you would first have to figure out a way to quantify the interpretation in order to do a comparison and the burden of proof is on you to show that you have come up with a moral principle on fighting and war that gave rise to less interpretation. Otherwise your claim is dismissed.
Because during the time it was claimed that Prophet Mohamed was delivering the message of the Quran, in 7th Century Arabia it was customary to bury girl infants because women were not valued.
Sexual activity outside of marriage was not allowed. The rules around marriage are in the chapter called Nisa (Chapter 4), which is the Arabic word for women, not female children. Chapter 4 states there is a marriageable age but does not state a specific age to be considered mature (“shudud” in Arabic) enough to marry as people mature at different rates depending on the period of history, the culture, the circumstances and environments. The Quran distinguishes between women of a marriageable age and children.Bother trying to do what? Give moral guidelines in a message that we are supposed to interpret and apply to our individual circumstances? I think moral guidelines are a useful basis to develop a system of laws. I think laws are useful for societies.
In other words you are admitting that you can’t or won’t understand my point that it is impossible to draft a law about fighting and war that cannot be open to interpretation due to the variation in circumstances in every situation that could lead to one set of people arguing that violence is justified whereas another set of people will argue that it is unjustified.
There is no automatic link between believing in Allah and believing Allah wants you to kill people. People believing in ghosts aren’t a problem and do not provide intellectual cover for people who kill someone because they are certain that person is possessed by a spirit. So the content of the belief that a person is certain about is the problem, not that they hold a belief.
I would expect that it would not be a simplistic yes or no answer. Most decisions are a mix of “good” and “bad” intentions, so I would think the concept of accountability would not make sense unless the person holding me accountable (who presumably decides what is “good” and “bad”) judges it based on the details of the case. I would expect them to dissect my individual motives and actions and give me credit for “good” and debit for “bad” and determine where that left my balance overall.
Are you defining “can’t bring myself to say it” as someone who does not want to guess someone else’s mental health due to having insufficient information? I’m prepared to discuss Bin Laden’s thoughts as he appeared to have released a statement setting out his thoughts post 9/11, and we’ll just have to assume his thoughts were similar just before 9/11. Unless you want to point me to something said by the highjackers, I have no idea what they were thinking – but I can assume they were thinking the same thing as Bin Laden.
By the way, “Allahu Akbar” or some phrase remembering Allah is what a Muslim would try to say in a moment of intense emotion, and being about to die would be a period of intense emotion. If I was dying in hospital my last words or thoughts would probably be Allahu Akbar or Alhamdulillah or La ilaha illAllah.
Bin Laden at the start of his Letter to America justifying 9/11 said he wanted to “outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him” and he ends it “This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?” so he states his hopes about how Allah will view his actions, and then acts decisively in what he perceives as a war situation.
Nope. Certainty just indicates resolve. It’s a think positive attitude. It is only a problem depending on the circumstances and the belief and there is no problem arguing against specific beliefs based on their consequences while allowing other beliefs perceived as having benign consequences to exist.
Gabriella,How does that help you since Atheism is not science. You think you have a more truthful position on religion thanks to science?
This is exchange is becoming too unwieldy to reply to point-by-point as each Reply is longer than the last. Could you perhaps indicate which three points you think are you're strongest or most relevant and I'll reply to those?
Briefly though, you keep coming back to the content of various beliefs whereas my point concerns the rationale that gets you to that content, regardless of what it happens to be. You won't appreciate the comparison, but you're as one here with with Vlad when he kept going on about the different characteristics of leprechauns and "God" as if that had anything to do with the point, which concerned only the arguments that get you there regardless of where "there" happens to be.
To summarise: first if you manage to convince yourself first that there are absolute truths, and second that "faith" is a guaranteed way to know what they are (and third if you like that you'll be held "accountable" post mortem by a god if you haven't applied those truths while still on this mortal coil) then there's no reasoning that will stop you acting accordingly.
And that I think is a problem that's relevant to dogmatic beliefs – specifically religious ones – but not to science.
Gabriella,BHS
This is exchange is becoming too unwieldy to reply to point-by-point as each Reply is longer than the last. Could you perhaps indicate which three points you think are you're strongest or most relevant and I'll reply to those?
Briefly though, you keep coming back to the content of various beliefs whereas my point concerns the rationale that gets you to that content, regardless of what it happens to be. You won't appreciate the comparison, but you're as one here with with Vlad when he kept going on about the different characteristics of leprechauns and "God" as if that had anything to do with the point, which concerned only the arguments that get you there regardless of where "there" happens to be.
To summarise: first if you manage to convince yourself first that there are absolute truths, and second that "faith" is a guaranteed way to know what they are (and third if you like that you'll be held "accountable" post mortem by a god if you haven't applied those truths while still on this mortal coil) then there's no reasoning that will stop you acting accordingly.
And that I think is a problem that's relevant to dogmatic beliefs – specifically religious ones – but not to science.
BHSIf I were responding to this post, I'd say, 'evasion noted'.
When I try to keep my reply short and don't answer every point you made you accuse me of avoiding the point or ignoring it. When I tried to answer every point you say the exchange is too unwieldy and ignore all the responses. You either don't know what you want or you seem to have turned into a troll.
How does that help you since Atheism is not science. You think you have a more truthful position on religion thanks to science?
If I were responding to this post, I'd say, 'evasion noted'.Good point Susan.
How does that help you since Atheism is noscience.
You think you have a more truthful position on religion thanks to science?
When I try to keep my reply short and don't answer every point you made you accuse me of avoiding the point or ignoring it. When I tried to answer every point you say the exchange is too unwieldy and ignore all the responses. You either don't know what you want or you seem to have turned into a troll.
Well, Christian moral realism seems to be comfortable with lots of lying, so I suppose it is, well, flexible.
Gabriella,BHS
But “every point I make” is a bit like me bashing those figures at fairgrounds that pop up and you have to hit them with a mallet. Every time I knock one down, six more appear – none of which have anything to do with the subject under discussion either. I also incidentally did offer to address you favourite three points in an attempt to limit your Gish galloping.
Essentially all your points refer to the content of your beliefs – deeply interesting no doubt, at least for you – but the basic principle I’m trying to address isn’t to do with content at all; it’s actually to do with that happens when you think some truths are absolute, and moreover that “faith” is sure fire way to know what they are.
You seem to be reluctant to discuss this, but I don’t know why.
You brought up most of those points yourself - people flying planes into buildings, Muslim enforcers, the lack of terrorism carried out in the name of specific philosophers, your insistence that religious text should not be open to interpretation but unable to explain how this would be achieved, your questions about my thoughts on accountability. When I sometimes declined to bash every one of your points with a mallet you accused me of ignoring your points.
If all you want to talk about is certainty, we've already covered that. You claimed that certainty was a problem in religion and introduced 9/11 into the discussion and asked me to compare it to secular rules. I pointed out in #729 that non-religious certainties also lead to mass murder and that UN resolutions lead to differences of opinion but that the US and UK were certain that the 'truth' was that they had the right to invade Iraq despite UN disagreement with their 'truth'.
You then claimed you didn't want a comparison...after asking me to compare religion to secular rules and instructions.
Then in #747 you said certainty was a problem in religious and non-religious beliefs.
In #754 I agreed with you that certainty about absolute truths, religious or non-religious was the problem. I agree that faith is not a guarantee of knowing any truths.
What I disagreed with was your assertion that there was a principle of certainty that was a problem in every scenario. I also disagreed with your belief that certainty of belief in God provided intellectual cover for certainty about other beliefs,acts or behaviours such as a belief that killing or terrorism will please God . I compared that to the example of certainty in feeling patriotic about your country not providing intellectual cover for Bush or Trump's pronouncements on patriotic behaviour.
You claim content does not matter, I disagree for the reasons given.
If I were responding to this post, I'd say, 'evasion noted'.
Wiggs,
Yes, but there's a sort of logic too I suppose to telling lies for Jesus. If you know - really, really know – the universal, objective truth about, say, moral questions because your personal faith guarantees that you do then by comparison telling a few porkies to get your point across is a trivial mater. After all, you have much higher purposes to attend to so why trouble yourself with such inconsequencies as a few dishonesties pecking at your ankles?
I wonder too if there isn't some of this in the behaviour of paedophilic priests. After all, if you're certain that "God" will look after you in the final reckoning no matter how disgusting your behaviour while here, what constraints are there on your actions if you were so orientated?
I'm not questioning Islam - I have absolutely zilch in the way of knowledge of the contents of the Koran (or however you, personally, spell it) I was referring to your comment in the context of the Bible.
I still ask the question as stated in my post - If the Bible is the revealed word of God why does it need interpretation by mere mortals? If it is the revealed word of God and intended for the followers of that God why would he not put it in language that his people would understand?
I am accusing you of being evasive because you are being evasive. I have engaged with the points you raised about principle - I don't agree there is a principle of certainty to be concerned about. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not engaging. If it was, then I can say it right back to you - why is it so difficult for you to engage with my points.
Make up your mind - your above post - do you want me to respond to it point by point or not? If I don't respond to each point you claim I am ignoring a specific point. if I respond to it point by point and you disengage with the points made in response to your points, claiming a work project, with false promises of coming back to my points when you have time as you have done in the recent past, or if you claim my points are Gish Gallups then you are just being a troll.
BHS - I agree with the bit about theocracies. No one here is arguing that a theocracy is the way to go.
Bumpedf for the attention of GabriellaI already responded to you - see #730.
A response and not an evasion please.
Gabriella,I have found the flaws in your assertions and I don't just say I don't agree. Presumably you being certain that you are right that you just keep repeating your assertions and evading responding to my points is just an example of your dogmatic belief.
Actually it pretty much is. “Engaging” would entail holding the argument up to the light to find the flaws in it, then talking about those flaws. You on the other hand say, “I don’t agree” then shoot sideways into any manner of extraneous stuff. I’ve addressed a lot of that stuff (and have offered to do so again) but you can’t accuse me of evasion for not continuing with it when you resolutely refuse to engage with the basic thesis.
I know that you don’t agree with it. Really, I know that because you keep saying, “I don’t agree” when I try to bring the discussion back to it. What I don’t know though is why you don’t agree – not by reference to your personal beliefs, but rather by reference to the merits or demerits of the argument itself.
What would potentially at least be interesting would be for you to respond the actual point of the discussion – namely the certainty that there are absolute answers combined with the belief that faith is the guaranteed means to find those answers is logically indefensible and moreover tends to have very bad real world outcomes when people do think that way.
Gabriella,Incorrect comparison. I don't need to defend my benign outcomes - I don't mount a defence because there is nothing to defend if the outcome is benign.
Well good, but how then would you propose to argue against someone who does think think that and perhaps doesn't care much who gets hurt by his efforts to achieve it when his defence is precisely the same as yours for your benign outcomes - ie, "faith"?
I have found the flaws in your assertions and I don't just say I don't agree.
Presumably you being certain that you are right that you just keep repeating your assertions and evading responding to my points is just an example of your dogmatic belief.
Incorrect comparison. I don't need to defend my benign outcomes - I don't mount a defence because there is nothing to defend if the outcome is benign.
Gabriella,You are still trolling I see. It's bad to feed your trolling but if you need to see my responses, go back over the posts I listed for Owlswing where I agreed that certainty was not good for religious or non-religious beliefs about what the morally right thing to do is and then explained why holding a belief in God is not covering for extremist belief, as the outcome is what matters.
Is that right? Well, all I recall seeing so far is, "I don't agree" and then a bunch of tu quoque, irrelevancies, personal anecdotes etc. As I seem to have missed it, perhaps if you could just show me where you did find these flaws though I could consider your rebuttals.
Ta.
Are you Vlad's kid sister or something - you seem to have a particular fondness for the straw man too. By all means though to to find an example of me ever saying that I'm certain of anything if you feel like it.
And if you don't want ever to engage with the argument itself (other that is that is with a, "I don't agree" and some irrelevancies), you can hardly complain when the argument is re-stated in the (apparently forlorn) hope that you'll change your mind about that.
I already responded to you - see #730.
But I am a Muslim, not a Christian so you'll have to ask someone who believes the Bible is the word of God. I thought Christians believed that it had been revised many times and had been written by people.
If that reply is not enough for you, you can always read any of my responses to BHS below when he made the same point. Take your pick:
From #790:
Fallible people are supposed to interpret the moral principles to develop a workable legal system to govern fallible people. It is inevitable that the a system run by fallible people will exhibit imperfections. It is impossible to word any principles about fighting and killing in a way that achieves justice but does not allow for variation of circumstance, which therefore makes interpretation necessary if the goal is to have a just outcome.
From #775
I think it is impossible to write unambiguous moral statements that will fit any circumstance. I also think it is impossible to stop an individual if they want to try to interpret a moral statement to apply to their situation.
If you think it is possible to produce unambiguous moral rules, how come it hasn't be done, and instead we end up with so many court cases?
If you, on the other hand, want to make a claim that it is possible to make a moral rule that is not open to interpretation and will prevent terrorist acts feel free to prove your claim by demonstrating it.
From #770
Why don't you suggest a method that you think will work without creating ambiguity and I will give you my opinion on it. The UN and various legislatures have tried creating laws without ambiguity and yet there are so many court cases because people think there is ambiguity in the text and there of course also so many law breakers. I have first-hand experience of volumes of dry tax legislation full of opportunities for loopholes and when they try and close one loophole they just create an opportunity to find another loophole.
From #754
Because as I explained before, moral rules tend to be complex and ambiguous and need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. I'm fine with the ambiguity, you're not.
From #729
Because morality and the individual circumstances of people's lives are far more complex than 2+2=4. Was that a serious question that you really needed me to explain the answer to?
I have what I believe is a divinely authored text to interpret so I'll get on with the business of interpreting it with my limited abilities, as will every other individual who believes it to be a divinely authored text, and given that there are a wide range of abilities based on nature and nurture and political and environmental factors etc, I would expect to see a wide range of interpretations, but we share the core belief iin a monotheistic concept of God that has communicated with us through messengers.
From #722
Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.
From #720
I wasn't discussing the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. What's the point of discussing that because there is no method to know if something is authored divinely so the truth can't be established. There is only a belief that it was authored divinely. Regardless of the belief, interpretation is the only method I have of understanding or incorporating the text (and all the scholars' subsequent interpretations) into my thought process.
From #638
Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted. It doesn't mean that the meaning can be anything - there is usually broadly agreed consensus on the meaning but you can have dissenting opinions. And it is always possible that individuals can apply a verse to a situation where they would need to make all kinds of assumptions and provisos to make it fit - you can't stop someone from having a punt.
From #620
As I said, I think I can form an opinion based on the text. I have no way of being certain if that opinion is correct, but I have to make a judgement call so I will proceed on the basis I got it vaguely right until I come across new information that leads me to change my understanding, intentions and actions.
From #594
I haven't figured out a way to establish what a god may have decided, so I think we can only hold opinions. Guess we will both have to wait until someone who thinks they know what any supposed God wants answers our question about how they established what said God wants.
I don't know what the Christian theory is but my understanding of Islam is that we have a message in the Quran, and the test on which we are judged is how we interpret the message, what our intentions are based on our interpretations, and how we actually behave
Good point Susan.I have read subsequent posts, but I'll just mention that, in order to be quite clear, it was your evasion to which I referred!
BHS - evasion noted. All the points you just made have been responded to in reply #790 - the post I wrote after you claimed I was ignoring your points. You asking me to repeat my points is you evading my responses.
I have read subsequent posts, but I'll just mention that, in order to be quite clear, it was your evasion to which I referred!I know. I just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to highlight your bias in ignoring BHS' evasion of my points while hypocritically asking me why I was ignoring his.
Vlad,BHS
I “helps” me only inasmuch as I’m trying to get Gabriella to focus on the basic question rather than endlessly disappear down rabbit holes of irrelevance (an early support act for the Hexagons of Lightning by the way). It’s a basic Gish Gallop in other words – she posts great sprawling texts (one of which introduced science by the way) that dance around the issue but never actually address it, then accuses me of evasion if I don’t track down every one (even though these diversions are themselves just evasion of the basic questions being asked).
No – reason is sufficient for the job. Has anyone even suggested such a thing though?
You are still trolling I see. It's bad to feed your trolling but if you need to see my responses, go back over the posts I listed for Owlswing…
…where I agreed that certainty was not good for religious or non-religious beliefs about what the morally right thing to do is…
…and then explained why holding a belief in God is not covering for extremist belief, as the outcome is what matters.
See if you can work out for yourself where you have been going wrong.
It appears to me that Hillside is doing a Sam Harris by suggesting that non violent religious believers just provide cover for militant extremists or even the ground from which extremism sprouts.
Hillside might be more moderate than Harris who has proposed a preemptive nuclear strike against a religious community. Under Hillsides own logic that makes Hillsidism the respectable face of Harrisism.
I put certain persons apparent support for Hillside down to uncritical cheerleadership.
I know. I just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to highlight your bias in ignoring BHS' evasion of my points while hypocritically asking me why I was ignoring his.
I am still waiting for BHS to produce some entrapment case law to justify his assertions on the Searching for God thread. He claimed he had a work project that would keep him busy and would get back to me after that and then then never got back to me despite reminders. Which makes his posts to Vlad a tad hypocritical.
Vlad,You seem to be blowing your own special pleading about moderation being a cover and humbug about moderates apart here Hillside.
Intellectual cover, yes. Actually it’s societies in general that in the public square privilege religious faith over just guessing rather then individuals specifically, but you’ve got the drift.
I’ll leave you to your private grief here.
Isn’t the “uncritical” one here you though? Do you have any arguments against the thesis, or do you think “doing a Sam Harris“ constitutes an argument?
You were the one endlessly disappearing down rabbit holes of irrelevance that you reminded me to respond to, such as endlessly asking me why religious scripture on moral issues is open to interpretation despite you being unable to show how morality could not be open to interpretation; or talking about Muslim enforcers; or bringing up rocking back and forth and reciting the Quran being a sign of being controlled (utterly ridiculous assertion);
I have engaged with your argument, that faith or belief in religious or non-religious certainties is not a guarantor of truth. I agreed many times that a "true for me" is no guarantee that it is "true for you". I also agreed that just because a belief works for me, that is also not a guarantor that it is true.
You keep asserting that feeling certain that God exists based on faith is intellectual cover for acts of religious extremism, but have not been able to demonstrate that any principle exists that links certainty in personal faith or 'true for me' beliefs about existence to certainty in belief that committing a criminal act that affects other people is a moral act. You simply asserting that such a principle or link exists and that the difference caused by the different outcomes does not break the link is fine - you can believe that if you want but it does not make it true.
You asserting that the religious belief in something's existence is intellectual cover for those who believe they must commit criminal acts on other people to please their god fails to distinguish firstly, between the huge gap between existence and actions, and secondly between criminal theists and law-abiding theists who quite clearly are capable of following the law and ignoring their personal beliefs. Similarly you have criminal atheists with moral beliefs who are unable to ignore their certainty about their moral beliefs in order to obey the law. And you also have law-abiding atheists with moral beliefs i.e those who don't put their moral beliefs above the law.
I addressed your argument about privileging faith by saying it is the same as privileging certain morals beliefs in law - it's a matter of public taste. The privilege does not indicate that the faith or moral belief is objectively true.
And my point about science was that holding a belief that the end justifies the means in advancing science was an example of non-religious dogmatic thought. Simple enough to understand even for you I would have thought, but you seem to have some kind of Pavlovian reaction as soon as the word "science" is mentioned and start some well-rehearsed but irrelevant answer that does not address the point made.
If you don't wish to engage with the points I have actually made and just want to endlessly make irrelevant responses to my posts against arguments I have not made, that's up to you.
You seem to be blowing your own special pleading about moderation being a cover and humbug about moderates apart here Hillside.
Hillsidism is cover for Harrisism.
Vlad,Only an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe is the same as an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe. Ha Ha Ha.
The random word generator is purring nicely today. Did you have a point to make though?
BlueHillSide - Gabriella
Are you two married?
I only ask 'cos your exchanges on this thread make it seem more than highly likely that you are!
Only an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe is the same as an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe. Ha Ha Ha.
Well, Vlad seems to have converted Christianity into an engineering project. I wonder if this will catch on. A bit like worshiping Brunel. O mighty Isambard Kingdom, thine is the kingdom indeed, and we gather today to worship at your project, only, do you think you could alter the machine code a bit, so the whisky bottle doesn't empty as quickly?
Gabriella,BHS
Why are you doing this to yourself? The whole discussion re interpretation only came about because you introduced it, even though it had nothing to do with the actual issue on the table. My mistake was in following you down your rabbit holes rather than with pointing out their irrelevance.
Indeed, but what I was asking you to address was the issue on the table – ie, the privileging of faith over guessing as a generalised phenomenon.
Think about it. You think that some things are true because that’s your faith. Lots of other people think that lots of other things are true because that’s their faith. This thinking becomes baked in in legal, educational, constitutional, moral philosophy etc discourses (which is why in our country alone churches get tax breaks and exemptions from equality laws, we have faith schools, the Queen is head of state and church, clerics are consulted on major moral issues etc).
And while you personally may not think your truths to be certain (except perhaps the “truth” god) and nor your faith to be a sure fire way to identify those truths, lots of other people using exactly the same method do think that. And when enough of those people have enough influence in given societies, reason- and evidence-based thinking is replaced by dogma.
And as Christopher Hitchens paraphrased Camus’ La Peste:
"The plague is over, the rats have died or disappeared. The city of Iran has returned to health; the Mediterranean is shimmering again, the white buildings have been cleaned, the people are back on the streets.
And yet, the rats were only down in the sewers, and waiting for the day when they could once again set themselves up to die on the streets of a free city."
Not for one moment do I suggest that you personally would use your faith one day to blow up a bus. I do though suggest that enough people thinking as you do provides the cover and, eventually, the infrastructure for those who would.
That’s missing the point entirely – see above.
No you didn’t. To address it you’d have to explain why you think that faith beliefs that by definition are not amenable to reason are equivalent to beliefs that are.
Because it’s a crap point. Who in science says, “the end justifies the means” exactly?
Perhaps if you looked in the mirror?
Owls,Actually it would be more like:
Can you imagine it?
Me: What can I cook you for dinner tonight my love?
G: Just because some people eat in the evenings that doesn’t mean that I’ll want to does it? Lots of cultures have their main meals in the middle of the day. Have you though of that? Well have you?
Me: Er, I was just wondering whether I could…
G: And another thing, I have other needs too. Why are you focusing on hunger when being warm or watching telly might be just as important?
Me: Look, I was just wondering if I could cook you a nice steak with a gratin dauphinoise and some green beans or something.
G: Oh, and would that be a medium rare steak or something else? And that gratin dauphinoise, are you just assuming I’d want it with gruyere rather than with parmesan then? Big mistake there my friend, even for you.
Me: OK, I’m going out…
I'd ask you the same thing - why are you doing this to yourself? Ippy introduced the idea of interpretation when he said I could make his post mean anything I want by taking his post out of context. Outrider and I had a discussion about interpretation and you jumped in.
You then insisted on going into an in depth discussion about interpretation and how pointless God and the Quran was if theists had to interpret scripture - see your response #610 in response to me stating "You'll have to ask the theists who think they are certain about what any supposed God's words mean. As I said before all the theists I know state they are expressing an opinion, and Allah knows best."
My response in #638 was "It works for various Muslims, even if it doesn't work for you. Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted.....The Quran is much less specific or detailed than statutes and like anything made up of sentences in verse for, it requires interpretation . The Quran might not work for you as a source of inspiration and guidance - fair enough."
You then kept on asking me what the point of scripture was if it had to be interpreted and why a god would not write it unambiguously - see #721, #724 and brought up the negative effects of someone having certainty in their interpretation of moral ideas.
I replied in #754 "Regardless of whether they recognise it or not, they have just interpreted and yes certainty is a problem with human beings, religious or otherwise. See above for examples of non-religious interpretations that lead to lots of dead people, far more than the 3000 odd in 9/11."
Have you finally got the point that I don't think faith is a guarantee of truth?
Which brings me to your comment "Not for one moment do I suggest that you personally would use your faith one day to blow up a bus. I do though suggest that enough people thinking as you do provides the cover and, eventually, the infrastructure for those who would. "
The underlined bit - can you specify what it is you believe that I think - in order to justify your suggestion that what I think provides cover to extremists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_muwtTQjMg
Actually it would be more like:
BHS: I am cooking pasta for you for dinner tonight my love
Me: I can see why that would work for you but no thanks - I am skipping dinner and I don't want to eat carbs for dinner anyway because I am trying to reduce my percentage of body fat
BHS: But you have to eat otherwise your thinking is providing intellectual cover for anorexics and bulimics. I am not suggesting that you personally are an anorexic but allowing you to exert self-control to skip a meal privileges your right to skip meals in the public arena. You clearly are certain that not eating carbs after 7pm will reduce your body fat percentage and your certainty means that other people will think it ok to be certain they can eat nothing ever again and not die. Enough people thinking as you do provides cover for all the anorexics.
Me: When did I say I was certain that this was the way to reduce my body fat percentage - I'm trying this out to see if it works for me.
BHS: Just because something works for you it doesn't mean it's true.
Me: I'm going out for a run - enjoy your pasta.
NS,This one maybe?
So droll. When I clicked on the link for once LOL actually meant LOL.
Gabriella,For what feels like the 100th time I don't think faith/certainty/belief is a reliable guide to inerrant truths - regardless of whether those 'truths' are religious or non-religious.
We can talk again about this if you like but the basic issue I was getting to was, if you think that faith is a reliable guide to inerrant truths, how would you square that with everything requiring interpretation which would necessarily limit any truth value to your ability to do the interpreting? See below though.
Any truth, or just some truths?
So far as I can tell you think some things to be certainly true (eg, "God") and you think that because you also think that "faith" is a reliable way to identify those truths. Now I might be wrong about that of course - you might for example think "God" to be no more than a speculation that you find to be functionally useful as, say, a child finds belief in the Tooth Fairy to be functionally useful but that's not the impression I get.As I explained earlier thinking God is true for me is a statement of personal resolve - I don't even claim to "know" God is true for me, let alone for you, as my definition of "know" is to establish it objectively.
Either way though, it'll be a simple matter for you to clear up.
For what feels like the 100th time I don't think faith/certainty/belief is a reliable guide to inerrant truths - regardless of whether those 'truths' are religious or non-religious.
And if you want to continue discussing interpretation, you seem to be claiming that it is possible to write moral statements about fighting in wars that are not open to interpretation.
If you are claiming that it's for you to justify that claim by providing an example. I, on the other hand, don't think it's possible. So while it may be possible to judge after the act the rights and wrongs of a situation I don't think it is possible to prevent someone from carrying out the act or trying to justify their act by interpreting some rules written in a book.
As I explained earlier thinking God is true for me is a statement of personal resolve - I don't even claim to "know" God is true for me, let alone for you, as my definition of "know" is to establish it objectively.
The only other possible meaning of "know" is that it is a statement of belief or a leap of faith to believe without having the evidence to turn that belief into an objective fact e.g. I know I love him/her. If it's not an objective fact I can't expect anyone else to adopt it as true. They might however adopt the belief for other reasons.
Owls,
Can you imagine it?
Me: What can I cook you for dinner tonight my love?
G: Just because some people eat in the evenings that doesn’t mean that I’ll want to does it? Lots of cultures have their main meals in the middle of the day. Have you though of that? Well have you?
Me: Er, I was just wondering whether I could…
G: And another thing, I have other needs too. Why are you focusing on hunger when being warm or watching telly might be just as important?
Me: Look, I was just wondering if I could cook you a nice steak with a gratin dauphinoise and some green beans or something.
G: Oh, and would that be a medium rare steak or something else? And that gratin dauphinoise, are you just assuming I’d want it with gruyere rather than with parmesan then? Big mistake there my friend, even for you.
Me: OK, I’m going out…
Well not focussing on a set of rules does make very thing a bit harder and the words of Jesus can be jarring but it does help us from falling into legalism.
Well, I'm sure that's a devilish trap worth avoiding. But it still doesn't help us get a grip on this area of moral realism you are talking about (this sort of thing of course has its own thread). From your point of view, it's supposedly somewhere in the scriptures, and there is a sort of feel of 'goodness' about some of the statements of Christ and St Paul - and also a lot which we might be happy to dismiss. Not because the bar is being set too high, but because we realise that we live in different times, and have learned that the commands of Jesus (insofar as they were accurately reported) and the injunctions of St Paul were extremely temporal. They both, after all, tailored their ideas according to the conviction that the world was shortly coming to an end.God is love Dicky and therefore God is morality. God is the moral standard. Who'd have thought that eh, certainly not the materialists who would have us look for somekind of physical phenomenon or an element Moralanium. Legalists would have the law without the spirit of the law.
As for maintaining some vague idea of 'love' as a guiding principle (Jesus and Paul both strong on this), this has often been put into practice according to the adage "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". The latter part of that phrase brings you right back into the niceties of legalism.
I don't know why you are laughing. I don't find it very clever at all.
ROFLMAO! - Big time!
Well, Vlad seems to have converted Christianity into an engineering project. I wonder if this will catch on. A bit like worshiping Brunel. O mighty Isambard Kingdom, thine is the kingdom indeed, and we gather today to worship at your project, only, do you think you could alter the machine code a bit, so the whisky bottle doesn't empty as quickly?What's wrong with engineers or engineering.
God is love Dicky…
…and therefore God is morality.
God is the moral standard.
Who'd have thought that eh, certainly not the materialists…
…who would have us look for somekind of physical phenomenon or an element Moralanium.
Legalists would have the law without the spirit of the law.
Loveists have the spirit of the law.
Morality cannot be an impersonal sort of thing we are all, on a moral day, homeostatically trying trying to achieve. Be Holy says the Bible. In terms of temporal morality we are not expert at all. Now that may not sound like out fault but it is because we are talking about moral expertise which is a different domain from knowledge or skill.
Moral irrealism is a non starter because it has no power or ability for moral arbitration and as for morality being taste, well.
I don't know why you are laughing. I don't find it very clever at all.
What's wrong with engineers or engineering.
Is it beneath counselling or something.
Vlad,Me and PZ disagree
Nothing's wrong with either - they've just got bugger all to do with theology is all.
What's wrong with engineers or engineering.
Is it beneath counselling or something.
Me and PZ disagree
LOL.
Vlad,That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha
Nothing's wrong with either - they've just got bugger all to do with theology is all.
Vlad,No .it isn't.
Funny that.
That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha
Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......
An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.
and
An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.
That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha
Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......
An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.
and
An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.
You missed out, an infinite supernatural being which is love, and the source of all goodness and morality. Spot the difference.
You missed out, an infinite supernatural being which is love, and the source of all goodness and morality. Spot the difference.Missed nothing pal.
Missed nothing pal.or lying
.
To pretend that you, Bluehillside and the posse haven't been arguing against an intelligent designer who creates a unverse but is independent of it is either amnesia or turdpolishing of Cecil B. De Mille proportions.
To pretend that you, Bluehillside and the posse haven't been arguing against an intelligent designer who creates a unverse but is independent of it is either amnesia or turdpolishing of Cecil B. De Mille proportions.
That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha
Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......
An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.
and
An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.
Is this still going on?I'm afraid they are both descriptions that atheists and antitheists and especially Hillside has been arguing against for years.
There are two simple points. One us that there is more to God than the above. On every basic level the comparison is valid but soon as you introduce other elements associated with God then it falls apart. The second point is that SU is nothing more than an hypothesis and no one here is claiming it as fact or even a belief.
Beyond that, where us this discussion going?
I'm afraid they are both descriptions that atheists and antitheists and especially Hillside has been arguing against for years.
I seem to recall Hillside particularly baulking at the idea of anything being outside the universe. Now because it has become the stuff of multiverse theories it is now OK and they didn't mean the outside of that universe and no deist or theist ever described God in those terms or that it isn't the minimal qualification for a God.
Next we will be treated to how intelligent design isn't to be understood as religion anymore because words change and ideas go extinct etc, etc, etc.
You guys are specially pleading.
Ode to atheist responses to Dr NDG Tyson
To be sung as a round to the tune ''London's Burning''
Simulation
simulation
special pleading
special pleading
Myers Myers
Myers Myers
Call Bluehillside
call Bluehillside
a or the is a complete irrelevance Hillside it is still basically theology and always will be.
The trolling is strong on this one. Do you intend to keep on lying about the "a" vs "the" universe problem though?
I don't know why you are laughing. I don't find it very clever at all.
Is this still going on?
There are two simple points. One us that there is more to God than the above. On every basic level the comparison is valid but soon as you introduce other elements associated with God then it falls apart. The second point is that SU is nothing more than an hypothesis and no one here is claiming it as fact or even a belief.
Beyond that, where us this discussion going?
Okay, carry on with your little spat with BHS then. Clearly got more more free time than me. Was only trying to help.
Of course you don't! You only find jokes funny when it is you taking the piss out of others!There are only two respectable positions for any atheist on the statement given by N De Grasse Tyson. Either denounce his suggestions as theology, intelligent design or acknowledge that this is exactly what theologians and deists have been saying for years.
If you can't take the heat stay out of the ruddy kitchen!
a or the is a complete irrelevance Hillside it is still basically theology and always will be.
There are only two respectable positions for any atheist on the statement given by N De Grasse Tyson. Either denounce his suggestions as theology, intelligent design or acknowledge that this is exactly what theologians and deists have been saying for years.
What is shoddy in my view is that somehow science has struck on something new and different. It hasn't. That i'm afraid is the absolute position.
While there are people who try to turn basic theological or deist claims into bad science now superceded by a superior scientific view, that falsehood must be constantly challenged as the intellectual imperialism it patently is.
Vlad,How can an idea supersede itself?
It's "superseded", and surely the "only respectable position" would be to stop lying about what the critique of his statement actually entails wouldn't it?
How can an idea supersede itself?
We are of a different opinion of what it means. You think you are correct I am correct but I do not call your opinion a lie.
Vlad,All irrelevant. Omnibenevolence is in a different category to omniscience and omnipotence in any case. Naturalistic is the other dodgy word here especially in your hands where any word can end up meaning anything. Anything which has created a universe is not naturalistic to that universe since it is outside of the universe. Remember that concept Hillside, it's the definition of a supernatural you've argued against.
Bless. So just to be clear, your version of Christian theology requires only the following:
1. A speculation or conjecture, but no more.
2. A “Creator” (or lots of creators for that matter) that need not be divine and could instead be smart but naturalistic aliens.
3. A creator who could himself be part of a larger simulated universe of which he’s not aware.
4. Only “a” creator of “a” universe – ie, the one of which we’re aware – but no more, and certainly not “the” creator of “the” universe.
5. A creator who would have existed once but could have died or left the scene immediately he finished his creation so no personal relationship with you would be possible.
6. No interest whatever in you, me or anyone else and no wish therefore to intervene in anyone’s life.
7. No omniscience, no omnipotence and no omnibenevolence. In fact no "omis" of any kind.
Well, that makes you a member of a Christian theology club of one I’d have thought (ie, not Christian or even theology at all), but if that’s your position by all means have your analogy.
Break any one of those conditions though and it collapses.
You choose.
Vlad,It was denounced as intelligent design which was declared religious at the Dover trials. Hence the opprobrium it is held in scientific circles.
You're lying about the criticism of NdGT's statement - which was essentially only that he overreached in his confidence about a speculation that can't be investigated.
And you're lying about what "theology" requires, for the reasons I set out. If you want to wind your neck in and argue instead for an analogy with deism on the other hand you'd still have insurmountable problems making the analogy work, but at least you'd have fewer of them.
You are incorrect and are turning this into a my version against your version but it doesn't change the facts at all. NDGT claim is common or Garden Theism or Deism since a universe has been intelligently created and that is all that is needed to pass into theology.
And you're lying about what "theology" requires, for the reasons I set out.
All irrelevant. Omnibenevolence is in a different category to omniscience and omnipotence in any case. Naturalistic is the other dodgy word here especially in your hands where any word can end up meaning anything. Anything which has created a universe is not naturalistic to that universe since it is outside of the universe. Remember that concept Hillside, it's the definition of a supernatural you've argued against.
Vlad,This must be the Fred and Ginger of fallacies. If you take out intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe. Then you don't have SU.
Of course they're relevant - a god who's still around, interventionist etc are what theism requires. Gut your "theology" of these things (and more) and there's no theology left. You may as well argue that SU is "identical" to Morris dancing, and when I tell you that SU doesn't entail flouncy outfits, bells, wooden sticks, dancing, music or beery blokes in pub gardens you tell me that that's all "irrelevant".
You are incorrect and are turning this into a my version against your version but it doesn't change the facts at all. NDGT claim is common or Garden Theism or Deism since a universe has been intelligently created and that is all that is needed to pass into theology.
It was denounced as intelligent design which was declared religious at the Dover trials. Hence the opprobrium it is held in scientific circles.
This must be the Fred and Ginger of fallacies. If you take out intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe. Then you don't have SU.
Hillside blown.
Vlad,Deism is a historical offshoot of theism. They are identical in the position of postulating an intelligent creator of a universe independent of a universe. Which is identical to that postulated in SU.
Wrong again.
First, you don't get to elide deism and theism as if they are the same thing.
Vlad,If they have designed a universe which they are not part of they are definitionally divine.
And if all you need is an intelligent designer of a universe who may or may not have been divine,
If they have designed a universe which they are not part of they are definitionally divine.
Hillsides argument composted bagged up spread on the land and now growing roses.
Why?And you would be divine.
If space really has many dimensions, then you could create a universe as big as this one, and keep in in your pocket.
Deism is a historical offshoot of theism. They are identical in the position of postulating an intelligent creator of a universe independent of a universe. Which is identical to that postulated in SU.
Anything else is irrelevant.
If they have designed a universe which they are not part of they are definitionally divine.
Hillsides argument composted bagged up spread on the land and now growing roses.
What is SU?Simulated Universe
Gabriella,No I keep coming back to what I learned when I did a law degree - that when Parliament drafts laws they can't make them too specific as it would mean having to draft millions of laws as the specific law would not be fit for purpose as it would not cover even slightly different circumstances - and that this would make for a cumbersome, unworkable legal system. Therefore a balance has to be achieved between detail and room for interpretation by a judge to allow the law to be used by a judge to apply to a wider set of circumstances and remove the need for constant revisions, amendments or re-drafting.
Okaaaay…
That’s another of your straw men. I’ve suggested no such thing. What I have suggested though is that it’s quite possible to write statements in ways that are less ambiguous than others. I mentioned a while back to Vlad medical ethicists for example (albeit that the point fell on deaf ears). What they do is to write guidance, codes of conduct etc with as much clarity as possible so that they have practical usefulness in hospitals and the like.
That’s not to say that they cover all eventualities, which is why new situations often have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it is to say that they didn’t instead think, “let’s do this in some vague versifying”. You keep coming back to a binary notion of “needing interpretation vs pellucid” when in fact there’s a whole spectrum of clarity in between.
That’s why your references to the UN and the like fail. Yes of course there’s inevitably the risk of ambiguity in their resolutions, as there is in any other attempt to codify behaviours (the Geneva Convention being another example) but at least there’s enough certainty to be functionally useful. Now compare that with “holy” texts that by comparison are essentially palimpsests – you can overwrite them again and again as interpretations change.
I’m still sensing that you think that “God” has a different status to “guess”, and that would make you an unusual theist I think but again OK. I don’t know about Muslim practices, but on the rare occasions I’ve attended Christian ones I’ve always been struck by the way they’re peppered with “sures” and “certains”.You may or may not have noticed that every single time I have read you describe my faith as a guess I have not contradicted you, at least I don't think I have, because I can see why it could be considered a guess.
Nope. Again this fell on def ears when I explained Epistemology 101 to Vlad a while back but think of “truth” as an onion. At the centre is absolute truth. Now I’ve no idea whether there is such a thing, and nor how we’d even know we’d found it even if we did but conceptually at least let’s accept it.When you say is there any method for faith to bridge the gap - are you asking if faith can make it true for you? Because quite clearly I don't think it can.
On the next layer out there are objective truths. These concerns facts – the speed of light in a vacuum for example – that we accept as true on the basis of reason, evidence, intersubjective experience and the like. Note that there’s no way to bridge the gap to the centre of the onion, but these methods provide provisional, functionally useful truths and so we proceed on that basis.
Then on the outside layer are guesses: leprechauns, gods, unicorns and any other faith beliefs. These things are speculations of varying degrees of coherence, and sometimes enough evidence emerges for them to transition to the middle layer.
The question then concerns first whether there’s any method for faith alone to bridge the gap from outside layer to middle layer (there isn’t), and second what in practice happens when people people think nonetheless that their faith does nonetheless do that.
Whether you personally are one of those people is a secondary mater.
They ceased to be non divine if they have fulfilled the criteria ''Intelligent designer of a universe, independent and outside of that universe.''
Wrong again. All they need be “definitionally” is sufficiently smart to create a universe.
Creating a universe one is independent of and outside of IS divine.
Wrong again. All they need be “definitionally” is sufficiently smart to create a universe. That tells you nothing whatever about whether they might also be divine.
No I keep coming back to what I learned when I did a law degree - that when Parliament drafts laws they can't make them too specific as it would mean having to draft millions of laws as the specific law would not be fit for purpose as it would not cover even slightly different circumstances - and that this would make for a cumbersome, unworkable legal system. Therefore a balance has to be achieved between detail and room for interpretation by a judge to allow the law to be used by a judge to apply to a wider set of circumstances and remove the need for constant revisions, amendments or re-drafting.
The Quran is used as a basis for people to add detail to develop a legal system, not as a legal system in itself. Sharia law has developed based on the principles in the Quran, the reported alleged actions and sayings of Prophet Mohammed, the reported alleged actions of his companions who became Caliph after he died, the opinions of scholars who lived about 200 years after Prophet Mohamed died, and who happened to have the patronage of the Caliph of the empires they lived in, which meant their particular schools of thought survived and became popular, and the opinions of other people over the centuries who gained power or influence after these scholars died.
Sharia law has developed in many different directions in many different countries in line with the wishes and culture and infrastructure of those in power at the time in those countries. - there is not one agreed upon sharia law.
You may or may not have noticed that every single time I have read you describe my faith as a guess I have not contradicted you, at least I don't think I have, because I can see why it could be considered a guess.
However, the way I use the word "guess" is to say "I guess so" to indicate I don't have much interest in the subject matter. So for me this is more than a guess on the basis that I have more interest and commitment and resolve with the concept of a god in an Islamic narrative. So I would not want to use the word "guess" as it doesn't describe the whole picture.
If, on the other hand, your use of "guess" means that if you don't know it as a fact, and you have no demonstrable evidence to justify what you think then you are guessing, then I agree, by your definition i am guessing.
When you say is there any method for faith to bridge the gap - are you asking if faith can make it true for you? Because quite clearly I don't think it can.
Or are you talking about a person's emotion that inspires them to believe without having evidence that they can demonstrate to others, because their feeling/ personal experience gives them a particular emotion/ understanding/ perspective that they were seeking so validates their decision to persist with their belief in something they cannot fully explain or present a coherent concept of to someone else?
Creating a universe one is independent of and outside of IS divine.What is a universe in this description?
They ceased to be non divine if they have fulfilled the criteria ''Intelligent designer of a universe, independent and outside of that universe.''
Sorry Hillside.
Creating a universe one is independent of and outside of IS divine.
What is a universe in this description?
And you would be divine.
We know that because Bluehillside wearing his atheist hat has been arguing against such an entity for as many years as I've known him.
He is now his own chief opponent it seems.
What is a universe in this description?
NS,Yes, I see all that but worse for me is that this appears to make computer games developers divine, and trust me they aren't
NdGT referred only to the apparent universe, ie the one of which we're aware. Vlad has expanded that to imply the universe as a whole with which the claims of theology are concerned though he keeps switching between "a" universe and "the" universe as if they were interchangeable. Why he thinks a conjecture that requires only a localised, possibly long gone, possibly naturalistic alien engineer with some smart technology and the intent to use it is "identical" to theology is anyone's guess, but that's his claim nonetheless.
Well, presumably humans might be able one day to simulate a self-sustaining world via software. I guess we are then divine, according to Vlad.I think we by that definition already have. Or rather some us have. Gods walk amongst us.
Why divine, and not just very clever?False dichotomy?
Yes, I see all that but worse for me is that this appears to make computer games developers divine, and trust me they aren'tNot to us they aren't.
False dichotomy?
It's certainly an interesting take on God or divinity. Simulating a world is divine? Who needs stuff like the supernatural, sin, salvation, a redeemer, Jesus, in fact. Vlad has shaken it all up!SU does not mean necessarily that there isn't sin, salvation, redemption Jesus and in SU the creator is not subject to the natural order of that universe which is probably as supernatural as you can get.
Vlad,Don't be silly. You are claiming that you can't be divine and very clever. Still if you've laid down the biggest turd of refusing to recognise that two identical things are identical then there are then no holds barred.
No, just a falsification of your claim.
SU does not mean necessarily that there isn't sin, salvation, redemption Jesus and in SU the creator is not subject to the natural order of that universe which is probably as supernatural as you can get.
If you examine Bostrom's conjecture there is nothing to stop the creator/designer putting ''windows'' from himself to communicate with his universe and that specifically covers another part of theism which Hillside contends is missing from SU. It isn't and even if it were the basic qualification for simulator is theological.
Don't be silly. You are claiming that you can't be divine and very clever.
Still if you've laid down the biggest turd of refusing to recognise that two identical things are identical then there are then no holds barred.
Gabriella,As I said, the Quran does not appear to be a legal document - it is a message from the 7th century with some stories and some moral principles. I don't see a problem with a message from the 7th century being in verse form.
Yes, but they can’t make them too vague either. That’s the point – sufficiently clear to be functionally useful without being overly prescriptive. If Parliament thought vague versifying was a better way to achieve that than legal drafting, that’s what they’d have done.
You can’t have it both ways though. Either the principles that constitute “the basis” are clear and unambiguous, or their only functional use depends on whichever interpretation happens to be most accepted by the people trying to use them.I am not trying to have it both ways - as I have clearly stated many times now, the principles have to be interpreted by the people using them. The majority of the stories that I have read about Prophet Mohamed, regardless of whether they are true or not, suggest Prophet Mohamed was compassionate and merciful and those stories inform my interpretation of the Quran, therefore I would be very wary about interpreting it in a way where I end up hurting people, as my interpretation is that mercy and forgiveness is good and hurting people other than in a war situation is very, very bad.
Well yes, though it seems odd to me to have “commitment and resolve” etc to any one guess over any other.Okay. On the other hand it works for me.
No, it’s more that I’m asking why anyone should privilege a faith belief over any other guess. Why in other words when someone attempts, “but that’s my faith” as an argument shouldn’t the only rational answer be, “so what?”.I have not contradicted you when you have come out with this before. I don't have a problem with the answer being "so what?"
What people find personally emotionally satisfying is a matter for them, but I see no reason to treat in the public square any one such faith claim differently from any other. That’s all I’m saying here.As I have said before in other threads, if decisions are made to treat one faith differently from another in the public square, there is probably a quid pro quo reason for doing so. There's a political reason and my impression is that that's the reality of the way the world works. Lobby groups use this to their advantage.
I said, the Quran does not appear to be a legal document - it is a message from the 7th century with some stories and some moral principles. I don't see a problem with a message from the 7th century being in verse form.
I am not trying to have it both ways - as I have clearly stated many times now, the principles have to be interpreted by the people using them. The majority of the stories that I have read about Prophet Mohamed, regardless of whether they are true or not, suggest Prophet Mohamed was compassionate and merciful and those stories inform my interpretation of the Quran, therefore I would be very wary about interpreting it in a way where I end up hurting people, as my interpretation is that mercy and forgiveness is good and hurting people other than in a war situation is very, very bad.
Okay. On the other hand it works for me.
I have not contradicted you when you have come out with this before. I don't have a problem with the answer being "so what?"
Presumably people respect faith beliefs because they think there is something to be gained from respecting something important to that person. Maybe they are trying to build a connection or mutual understanding in order to achieve a goal that they perceive as beneficial to them.
As I have said before in other threads, if decisions are made to treat one faith differently from another in the public square, there is probably a quid pro quo reason for doing so. There's a political reason and my impression is that that's the reality of the way the world works. Lobby groups use this to their advantage.
Gabriella,The Quran is believed to be the word of God. Muslims believe there is a blessing in reciting it in Arabic, even if they don't understand what they are reciting because they don't understand Arabic.
Nor do I provided you treat it as you would any other verse that happened to be attempting some moral proposals. As I understand it though most Muslims think it’s a lot more than that (which is why for example some of their children have to recite it in Madrasars in what passes for education), but if you don’t then so be it.
Yes you are – the “basic principles” of legal instruments require relatively little interpretation yet those of the Quran are it seems are all interpretation, which is why your analogy failed. Not because of a binary difference between them, but because of the difference in purpose and in clarity.No I am not. My point was that even something that was meant to be a legal instrument requires interpretation, so of course something that is not a legal document such as the Quran, in verse form, will require interpretation.
Maybe they are, but that doesn’t imply that they should be treated as anything other than guessing when those who think them personally important overreach into the asserting them to be therefore true.How they should be treated depends on what the person making that decision thinks they gain by treating the claim as something more. For example, if someone feels they are a man even though biologically they are a woman, I could say it's all in your head, or I could humour them and agree they are a man trapped in a woman's body. If I choose to do the latter, it is because I perceive a benefit to someone from respecting their perspective.
Perhaps, but essentially what I’m hearing you say I think is that you treat your faith as a type of aesthetics. Just as you might find a painting or a piece of music to be meaningful to you, that’s all you think it to be.I can't make it meaningful to someone else, so I have no choice but for it only to be meaningful to me. Freedom of religion - to believe or not believe - is in the Quran. If other Muslims think differently, it's probably a reflection of the increasing importance of identity politics, no platforming stuff that is going on in the UK - something I have very little interest in. I have no need for someone else to validate my identity or beliefs and I don't have a problem with people holding different beliefs and perspectives from me.
That makes you rare I think among those who typically call themselves “Muslim”, and I’m surprised that you’re content to share the label given what most others seem to mean by it instead but there you go.
So that's where we are now? Two identical statements are not just not identical but are not even close to being identical!
But they’re not even close to “identical”, for reasons that have been explained to you several times now but that you just ignore.
Gabriella,I meant to respond to this but forgot. I was referring to bioethics. e.g. debates about whether using foetal tissue from an elective abortion to cure otherwise incurable disorders could lead to a reduced sense of value of human life and exploitation of women. Some doctors feel the benefits justify this potential cost. others don't.
Because it’s a crap point. Who in science says, “the end justifies the means” exactly?
So that's where we are now? Two identical statements are not just not identical but are not even close to being identical!
I'm afraid even I'm not getting in there with you Hillside.
Vlad,So an intelligent creator of a universe of which it is independent of ......fundamentally misdescribes God eh? You better tell Hillside then he's been arguing against that kind of God for years.
Of course two identical statements are identical. The problem though is that one of them fundamentally misdescribes the thing it claims to be describing.
So an intelligent creator of a universe of which it is independent of ......fundamentally misdescribes God eh?
You better tell Hillside then he's been arguing against that kind of God for years.
There are only two respectable positions for any atheist on the statement given by N De Grasse Tyson. Either denounce his suggestions as theology, intelligent design or acknowledge that this is exactly what theologians and deists have been saying for years.
What is shoddy in my view is that somehow science has struck on something new and different. It hasn't. That i'm afraid is the absolute position.
While there are people who try to turn basic theological or deist claims into bad science now superceded by a superior scientific view, that falsehood must be constantly challenged as the intellectual imperialism it patently is.
The Quran is believed to be the word of God. Muslims believe there is a blessing in reciting it in Arabic, even if they don't understand what they are reciting because they don't understand Arabic.
Lots of Muslims can recite the Quran in Arabic but they are not comprehending it as they recite as they don't know Arabic vocab, grammar etc. They might know what some of the words and verses mean because they have learned the meaning when they are studying the meaning of verses using translations of the Quran in their native language.
I can recite the Quran in Arabic but only know limited vocab. But reciting together is a useful bonding exercise - better than watching TV as you have to use your brain to decipher the letters and blend them together. Sometimes each person takes a turn to recite a section and everyone else reads along and corrects them if they make a mistake; sometimes we recite at the same time so you get to practise without having to be in the spotlight. You tend to feel good after you have completed it.
If some Muslims think the Quran is all they need as their education they have obviously decided not to follow the reported Hadith on seeking knowledge and education.
No I am not. My point was that even something that was meant to be a legal instrument requires interpretation, so of course something that is not a legal document such as the Quran, in verse form, will require interpretation.
How they should be treated depends on what the person making that decision thinks they gain by treating the claim as something more. For example, if someone feels they are a man even though biologically they are a woman, I could say it's all in your head, or I could humour them and agree they are a man trapped in a woman's body. If I choose to do the latter, it is because I perceive a benefit to someone from respecting their perspective.
I can't make it meaningful to someone else, so I have no choice but for it only to be meaningful to me. Freedom of religion - to believe or not believe - is in the Quran.
If other Muslims think differently, it's probably a reflection of the increasing importance of identity politics, no platforming stuff that is going on in the UK - something I have very little interest in. I have no need for someone else to validate my identity or beliefs and I don't have a problem with people holding different beliefs and perspectives from me.
Gabriella,BHS - I'm really not. I don't know any other way to say it than that the Quran is considered a message with moral principles to be used by Muslims to add detail to create a legal system. If you can't understand my explanation and the role interpretation plays I don't see anything to be gained by repeating myself while you repeat that you don't understand it. I have nothing else to add.
There still seems to be a contradiction here – on the one hand you like the content, it provides meaning for you, and sharing it gives you a sense of community. So far, so book club.
On the other though you throw in the notion that some (most?) Muslims think it contains “the word of God” who presumably they also think was/is an inerrantly correct authority on the moral and other matters the book(s) address. For that latter group, if you do think that then why wouldn’t you just do as it says (or as the interpreting clerics say what it says) instruct you to act?
You really are. On the one hand you have legislation that’s purposive – it’s intended to be authoritative, and its basic principles are written to as to require the minimum possible amount of interpretation.
On the other you have, well, a “message” apparently that isn’t a legal document (and so presumably wasn’t mean to be purposive, though many Muslims I think would disagree with you about that) and that’s written, presumably deliberately, in substantially vague verse form.
The interpretation required for each is very different.
I meant how they should be treated by other people. When someone says “I’m a man of faith” and expects his beliefs accordingly to be taken seriously, I hear “I’m a fool” and possibly worse and will politely suggest he stand in the corner along with the leprechaunists.
As for the transgender person by the way, my response is indifference. Self identify any way you like – it’s none of my business.
Isn’t death for apostasy in the Quran too? Here’s Wiki by the way:
“As of 2014, laws in various Muslim-majority countries prescribed for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) sentences ranging from execution to a prison term to no punishment.[30][31] Sharia courts in some countries use civil code to void the Muslim apostate's marriage and to deny child-custody rights as well as inheritance rights.[32] In the years 1985-2006, three governments executed four individuals for apostasy from Islam: "one in Sudan in 1985; two in Iran, in 1989 and 1998; and one in Saudi Arabia in 1992."[24] Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy from Islam through their criminal laws.[33] The Tunisian Constitution of 2014 stipulates protection from attacks based on accusations of apostasy[34]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
You’re understating it – see above.
BHS - I'm really not. I don't know any other way to say it than that the Quran is considered a message with moral principles to be used by Muslims to add detail to create a legal system. If you can't understand my explanation and the role interpretation plays I don't see anything to be gained by repeating myself while you repeat that you don't understand it. I have nothing else to add.
There is no death for apostasy in the Quran. There are plenty of articles on this issue if you Google it so no point in me writing reams of text. I'll link to one I got off Google that seems to explain the reason for such laws in various Muslim countries and if you're interested after you read it you can start a thread on the Muslim board based on the article and your research and I will try to respond when I can. Though I have been through all this before many times on the Muslim board. The article also discusses interpretation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html
I get that you can't comprehend that theists might have different interpretations or not follow parts that they aren't sure about and you don't see the point of it all - you're not religious so from your experience there is nothing of value to it as you seem not to understand how theists might make use of religion.
Feel free to respond how you wish to a theist who says "it's my faith" - you don't need my permission so I'm not really sure why you're asking me how to respond. If you want to tell the theist they are a fool, go for it if that works for you. I might well have done the same sometimes when I was an atheist - can't remember it causing me or the theist a problem. Other people might want to respect the person's beliefs - that's their choice.
Gabriella,It's possible that the objectives are different. The 'western' moral philosophy is perhaps more directed towards creating beneficial social habits whereas the faith scriptures are directed towards personal transformation in order to align with or submit to a God and eventually attain a paradise state. It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed. The 'mystics' probably have the correct approach but often have to tread carefully in order to survive. As this thread seems to have drifted from Christianity to Islam, some quotes from Muslim mystics might illustrate their position:
What I don’t understand – and you don’t address – is the contradiction between moral philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle, Hume etc) that’s essentially logic- and argument-based and makes no claims to inerrancy, and “revealed” moral principles authored by a god. You seem to me to be vacillating between the two: on the one hand the Quran isn’t a “legal document” etc, on the other it’s apparently “to be used by Muslims” with no possibility of being junked as it doesn’t allow for reason-based falsification.
Of course I understand “the role interpretation plays” too, though I question whether you do. You seem to want to draw an equivalence between a religious “message” and legal texts for this purpose, though there’s clearly a difference between the maximal and minimal interpretation respectively that each requires.
Not sure what You mean by vascillating between the 2 descriptions you have chosen. I don't think the Quran is written in the same style as a statute, which despite's its dry legal language still allows for interpretation. Therefore something less detailed than statutes will be open to interpretation. And I do believe the Quran is the word of God so would not want to discard it. If that's vascillating according to you, ok.
Regarding Hadith on apostasy - would this not be better on the Muslim board? You can read this link if you want (excerpt below):
http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.co.uk/
Readers are invited/urged to explore a vast amount of resources/links presented at this blog, where scholars authoritatively have shown that none of the hadiths about apostasy is without problem or weakness. Also, there is no hadith confirming punishment or retribution solely for apostasy. In every single case, where punishment has been meted out, riddah involved treason or rebellion. The following is an example of how the Prophet dealt with solely apostasy
A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #318]I linked to covers your question about why some scholars, clerics think apostasy is punishable by death.
I don't know how the clerics are so sure - you will have to ask them. You can probably get an idea of their thinking by reading articles on the psychology of certainty about moral principles.
I think Muslims have varied thinking, but if they are certain that their interpretation of morality is right and self-identify as Muslims and I am not certain and I also self-identify as a Muslim, then inevitably I end up with the same title as them. If you believe in one God and think Prophet Mohamed was the last prophet, then you tend to self-identify as a Muslim. You don't have to - what you call yourself isn't really important - but it's a straight-forward answer when someone asks me my religion.
Who determines the moral values in public policy in your version of secularism?
It's possible that the objectives are different. The 'western' moral philosophy is perhaps more directed towards creating beneficial social habits whereas the faith scriptures are directed towards personal transformation in order to align with or submit to a God and eventually attain a paradise state. It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed. The 'mystics' probably have the correct approach but often have to tread carefully in order to survive. As this thread seems to have drifted from Christianity to Islam, some quotes from Muslim mystics might illustrate their position:
Jalal-ud din Rumi ... God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami ... Forgetfulness of Self is remembrance of God. ... and... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri ... Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.
It's possible that the objectives are different. The 'western' moral philosophy is perhaps more directed towards creating beneficial social habits whereas the faith scriptures are directed towards personal transformation in order to align with or submit to a God and eventually attain a paradise state. It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed. The 'mystics' probably have the correct approach but often have to tread carefully in order to survive. As this thread seems to have drifted from Christianity to Islam, some quotes from Muslim mystics might illustrate their position:Very true. Very clear explanation of the personal transformation aspect of religion and why religion therefore probably continues to attract people, because it inspires you to look outside yourself for some greater ideal or concept than existence.
Jalal-ud din Rumi ... God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami ... Forgetfulness of Self is remembrance of God. ... and... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri ... Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.
Not sure what You mean by vascillating between the 2 descriptions you have chosen. I don't think the Quran is written in the same style as a statute, which despite's its dry legal language still allows for interpretation. Therefore something less detailed than statutes will be open to interpretation. And I do believe the Quran is the word of God so would not want to discard it. If that's vascillating according to you, ok.It doesn't matter who wrote it, the writers believed in a god for which they and no-one since has one scrap of objective evidence to present.
Very true. Very clear explanation of the personal transformation aspect of religion and why religion therefore probably continues to attract people, because it inspires you to look outside yourself for some greater ideal or concept than existence.To encourage people to look 'outside themselves' by doing it via a faith belief inhibits and detracts from the person's infinite capacities and abilities of their own evolved brains. If they what I would certainly call waste time trying to find how to do it via a god, then they are on a path leading nowhere.
Gabriella,BHS, if it makes you happy to think of it as vacillating - up to you. Not sure what difference it makes - believing the god to be inerrant but the people interpreting any communication to be fallible. But it seems to mean something to you so that's fine with me. Yes - there are probably lots of other things that are different - one is in poetic form, the other isn't; one I recite in Arabic, the other I would want to only read in a language I can understand, even if my interpretations in a language I can understand might conflict with someone else's interpretations.
It’s “vacillating” and you’ve just nailed the issue. On the one hand you think legal instruments and a religious text to be analogous in that both require interpretation (albeit to different degrees), but on the other the qualitative difference between them – fallible man-made rules vs the revealed word of an inerrant god respectively – mean that they’re fundamentally different.
No. I’m not so much interested in the minutiae of the content as I am in the notion that an inerrant god has revealed his rules only they’re so riddled with ambiguity and uncertainty that there’s no way to know what they are.To paraphrase Ippy in his post to me that started this discussion off, anyone can make anyone else's words mean whatever they want it to mean. Language and communication has that attribute but that's what fallible humans use to communicate with each other so we're stuck with that method of communication, flaws and all. Poetry was and is very appealing, so I am ok with the notion that an inerrant god has revealed moral rules in poetic form and will judge us on how we interpret them and our intentions and actions based on those interpretations.
I do – faith. Or rather the conviction that faith is a reliable guide both to the idea that there are divine (and therefore inerrant) rules, and to what they are. The psychology of why people think that is what interests me, not whatever they happen to think those rules to be.As we already established faith can exist without people thinking their faith is a reliable guide. I believe there are inerrant rules and i believe I will be judged on them - though I don't know what the pass mark is set at or how the marking scheme works. I don't think my faith is a reliable guide to getting the rules right - but it doesn't stop me trying, when I have the inclination, to make the best judgement I can with the material and knowledge that I have at my disposal.
Indeed. You also though self-identify as “a member of a community that privileges faith over just guessing”. You presumably would say in reply, “So what?”. My view however is that, however unwittingly, that provides in some degree at least cover for those would use the same rationale to do terrible things. Your only argument against them then is that your interpretations is different, whereas mine is that the rationale itself is false.Umm - not sure what the underlined bit means. I self-identify as a member of a community that believes in one god and Prophet Mohammed (there are actually 5 pillars of Islam - the other 4 are prayer, zakath, fasting and Hajj). We have some shared practices and rituals.
I know incidentally that some on my side of the fence look askance at this too. How dare I suggest that their entirely harmless Mum going to church on a Sunday is a bedfellow of someone who would blow up a bus? Then I look at grown people in Northern Ireland screaming at children trying to walk to primary school and cannot but think of one thing: slippery slope.Ok but the slippery slope is a fallacy in terms of an argument.
Happy to answer that if you’d like me too, but it’s the wrong question. It’s not “who”, but rather “what status do they attach to them?” that matters. In secular societies no-one claims the values to be revealed words of gods – they’re worked toward bottom up rather than top down, they’re provisional, tentative, subject to change etc. And that it seems to me is key to avoiding the excesses that dogmatic certainty apparently inevitably brings.Whether they claim the values to be the revealed words of gods or not doesn't stop some of them committing terrible acts in a secular society because they are certain their values are right . If the "rats" are people who are certain and who commit terrible acts then the rats comprise of people who are religious and non-religious.
To encourage people to look 'outside themselves' by doing it via a faith belief inhibits and detracts from the person's infinite capacities and abilities of their own evolved brains. If they what I would certainly call waste time trying to find how to do it via a god, then they are on a path leading nowhere.Not really - I find it very useful to not dwell on myself provides there is balance and I don't neglect myself either. I find it useful to change my perspective to one of being judged by something greater than myself - it helps put any issues I have into perspective and means I don't dwell on my own feelings too much, whereby I am unable to function because I am so caught up in my own wants and needs. And as i have explained before, the rituals and practices provide structure and discipline for the day - again this stops me from dwelling on my feelings and needs.
It doesn't matter who wrote it, the writers believed in a god for which they and no-one since has one scrap of objective evidence to present.The interpretations are ideas generated by their own brains - so as you say it doesn't matter who they think wrote it - it only matters if they recognise that they have interpreted it and therefore the interpretations are man-made and open to error.
If they made it clear that they were interpreting words written by humans based on ideas generated by their own brains, there could be a base line of some sort, somewhere to start.
The interpretations are ideas generated by their own brains - so as you say it doesn't matter who they think wrote it - it only matters if they recognise that they have interpreted it and therefore the interpretations are man-made and open to error.While still believing that there is some god somewhere behind it all.
While still believing that there is some god somewhere behind it all.Ok. I don't think my support for a belief in god is that silent though. I've been pretty vocal about it on this forum because my perception is that it can be a good thing, provided there is some balance to how it is used.
Those who go along with their religion of cchoice are providing silent support for the continued belief in some god. In my small lway I do what I can to further the cause of secularism (leading eventually to a time when only a small number still believe that any god/spirit/etc exists) by subscribing to the BHA and the NSS.
BHS, if it makes you happy to think of it as vacillating - up to you.
Not sure what difference it makes - believing the god to be inerrant but the people interpreting any communication to be fallible. But it seems to mean something to you so that's fine with me. Yes - there are probably lots of other things that are different - one is in poetic form, the other isn't; one I recite in Arabic, the other I would want to only read in a language I can understand, even if my interpretations in a language I can understand might conflict with someone else's interpretations.
To paraphrase Ippy in his post to me that started this discussion off, anyone can make anyone else's words mean whatever they want it to mean. Language and communication has that attribute but that's what fallible humans use to communicate with each other so we're stuck with that method of communication, flaws and all. Poetry was and is very appealing, so I am ok with the notion that an inerrant god has revealed moral rules in poetic form and will judge us on how we interpret them and our intentions and actions based on those interpretations.
As we already established faith can exist without people thinking their faith is a reliable guide.
I believe there are inerrant rules and i believe I will be judged on them…
… - though I don't know what the pass mark is set at or how the marking scheme works. I don't think my faith is a reliable guide to getting the rules right - but it doesn't stop me trying, when I have the inclination, to make the best judgement I can with the material and knowledge that I have at my disposal.
Umm - not sure what the underlined bit means. I self-identify as a member of a community that believes in one god and Prophet Mohammed (there are actually 5 pillars of Islam - the other 4 are prayer, zakath, fasting and Hajj). We have some shared practices and rituals.
Your view that it provides cover for terrorist acts - I'm not seeing it. My argument is that we're all individuals and responsible for what we do as individuals. Your rationale in trying to create a link just doesn't work - because as I explained we don't use that rationale for other acts committed by individuals - we don't say anyone who self-identifies as a man or doesn't act gender neutral provides cover for men who commit bad acts because of their interpretation of masculinity. The only reason I can fathom for you to form this irrational link when it comes to religion is your bias.
Ok but the slippery slope is a fallacy in terms of an argument.
Whether they claim the values to be the revealed words of gods or not doesn't stop some of them committing terrible acts in a secular society because they are certain their values are right .
If the "rats" are people who are certain and who commit terrible acts then the rats comprise of people who are religious and non-religious.
Ekim,Yes, I'm sure that the objectives will appear to be secondary as discussion is most often about organised religion rather than personal transformation and this will suit the power hungry organisers. To try and answer your second point, I would say that part of the problem is that nobody can seem to define what 'deity' means and the 'bottom up' religious organisers project appropriate qualities upon that term which might correspond to their cause. An emergent property of this might be a celestial carrot and stick King which a terrestrial ruler can then emulate. You can see a similar situation with the 'bottom up' method you mention. The philosopher Karl Marx proposed that religion was the opiate of the masses and from his philosophy a terrestrial Kim Jong-un has emerged with his own brand of opium. I suspect that in both cases it is the power hungry human ego (self) which has not "transformed" and which corrupts, whether it be religious or political.
The objectives of each seem to me to be a secondary matter. Before you get to that I’d want to address the difference between top down, revealed words of inerrant deities vs bottom up, tentatively worked toward, fallible, change apt attempts at codifying morality done by people.
“Personal transformation” and the like is all well and good, but when you throw a sort of celestial Kim Jong-un into the mix too then all sports of consequences will tend to follow.
Ok. I don't think my support for a belief in god is that silent though. I've been pretty vocal about it on this forum because my perception is that it can be a good thing, provided there is some balance to how it is used.Then you are one of many millions of many faiths continuing to support, and by supporting, promote ... well, what? A god/spirit/never-identified-spirit/entity?There are many names for the humanly imagined, supposed, alleged something, but which is 100% lacking in any substance, observation, objective evidence etc.
Interesting stuff, enki. Being an integral part of the world sounds very Eastern, where the idea of being separate is less prominent than in the Abrahamics. Something outside of oneself - I can see how people get there, as there is something outside the ego presumably, but then it gets reified, to use blue's word, which becomes strange.
Sounds like sincere moral endeavour of an actual unfeasible not practically existing type.
Happy to answer that if you’d like me too, but it’s the wrong question. It’s not “who”, but rather “what status do they attach to them?” that matters. In secular societies no-one claims the values to be revealed words of gods – they’re worked toward bottom up rather than top down, they’re provisional, tentative, subject to change etc. And that it seems to me is key to avoiding the excesses that dogmatic certainty apparently inevitably brings.
Yes, I'm sure that the objectives will appear to be secondary as discussion is most often about organised religion rather than personal transformation and this will suit the power hungry organisers.
To try and answer your second point, I would say that part of the problem is that nobody can seem to define what 'deity' means and the 'bottom up' religious organisers project appropriate qualities upon that term which might correspond to their cause. An emergent property of this might be a celestial carrot and stick King which a terrestrial ruler can then emulate. You can see a similar situation with the 'bottom up' method you mention. The philosopher Karl Marx proposed that religion was the opiate of the masses and from his philosophy a terrestrial Kim Jong-un has emerged with his own brand of opium. I suspect that in both cases it is the power hungry human ego (self) which has not "transformed" and which corrupts, whether it be religious or political.
bluehillside....
Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....
God Hates Religion
A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.
The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.
Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.
It is the propensity of man to formulate religion to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!
more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html
Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....
God Hates Religion
A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.
The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.
Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.
It is the propensity of man to formulate religion to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!
more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html
bluehillside....
Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....
God Hates Religion
A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.
The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.
Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.
It is the propensity of man to formulate religion to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!
more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html
Floo, read the whole article. As ekim explains in his excellent post #930..... "It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed."
I have never been averse to the idea of a person thinking that there is something outside oneself which one feels that they can relate to in some way.
If this results in rituals and practices which stengthen this resolve while leading to a responsible and beneficial effect on the individual then I feel that I have no cause to challenge that individual and their chosen attitudes at all as long as their particular ways do not exhort others to do the same or try to impose their views on others.
For my part, I see myself as an integral part of this world and hence I feel no need to worship anything particularly or subjugate myself in any way. I simply to try to understand myself which includes being aware, taking responsibility for and attempting to minimise what I judge to be my failings and seeking to encourage and act upon what I judge to be my better points. In this I always try to listen to the views of others, as indeed they can be very valuable, but it is my own mind that has to be the final arbiter as to how I develop.
I doubt that this is very much different from what lots of people seek to do, but I can only reiterate that in my case I feel I have no need for any outside agency(i.e. a god) to help me on this path.
... or the believer can refrain from making claims, persist with the method proposed by his faith and see if it reveals a fact or truth, until then 'maintain a noble silence'.
That wasn’t the point – it’s more fundamental than that. Either you privilege claims of fact that are articles of “faith” over just guessing or you don’t.
The difference I think between top down and bottom up is that some will, as an article of faith, believe there to be a god whose inerrant words are available to us “top down”, while others think we build morality (and aesthetics, and language etc) for ourselves “bottom up”..... or it could be that both are 'bottom up' because they are projections of human imagination to satisfy particular desires.
You should read the rest of the Marx quite by the way; it’s rather beautiful:... and perhaps now we can replace the word 'religion' with 'communism' or 'consumerism' or 'alcoholism' or 'facebook' etc.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
... or the believer can refrain from making claims, persist with the method proposed by his faith and see if it reveals a fact or truth, until then 'maintain a noble silence'.
.... or it could be that both are 'bottom up' because they are projections of human imagination to satisfy particular desires.
... and perhaps now we can replace the word 'religion' with 'communism' or 'consumerism' or 'alcoholism' or 'facebook' etc.
Floo locuta est, causa finita est. ::)
Show-off.
enki,
I’m “averse” to it only in the sense that I see no reason think it’s true, but in general terms I agree with sentiment.
That opening “if” is critical though. What if in instead it leads to say, teaching children that gay relationships are “sinful”? Indeed, what if “the individual” in this case is the teacher who does thereby feel strengthened in his “resolve”? Carrying an idea in your head is in other words one thing, but acting on it has consequences for other people that may actively be harmful.
The problem I think is the status we still afford to religious beliefs in education, in legislature, in the media, in public discourse generally. If instead we treated each religion as a private members’ club just as we do, say, the flat earth society, then whatever the members got from their rituals and sense of community would be just a matter for them and so treated accordingly. That is, when we stop privileging “faith” over just guessing then those who would use that rationale for malign actions would no longer be able to hide behind the respectability given to them by those who use the same rationale for benign ones.
As you probably expect, that makes sense to me too.
There are many methods, examples are the Noble 8 fold path of Buddhism, the variety of Yogas in Hindu religions, Jesus' metanoia, meditation .... a quote from Muhammad .... An hour of meditation is worth more than goods deeds done by men and spirits. Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity. 'Faith', to me, is persistence with a method in the belief that the outcome with be a revelation of an inner 'truth' of a deeper state of being, which may be given different names like heaven, paradise, nirvana, bliss, peace, satchitanada. The difficulty is that it cannot be presented as an objective fact. You have to demonstrate it to yourself by being the experimenter, the laboratory and the conclusion of the experiment. It is also difficult to communicate to others which is why the language of myth is used rather than logic.
There isn’t a method (unless you think faith itself to be a method), and nor therefore is there a means to investigate whether you’ve found a “fact or truth” or nothing at all.
There are many methods, examples are the Noble 8 fold path of Buddhism, the variety of Yogas in Hindu religions, Jesus' metanoia, meditation .... a quote from Muhammad .... An hour of meditation is worth more than goods deeds done by men and spirits. Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity. 'Faith', to me, is persistence with a method in the belief that the outcome with be a revelation of an inner 'truth' of a deeper state of being, which may be given different names like heaven, paradise, nirvana, bliss, peace, satchitanada. The difficulty is that it cannot be presented as an objective fact. You have to demonstrate it to yourself by being the experimenter, the laboratory and the conclusion of the experiment. It is also difficult to communicate to others which is why the language of myth is used rather than logic.
There are many methods, examples are the Noble 8 fold path of Buddhism, the variety of Yogas in Hindu religions, Jesus' metanoia, meditation .... a quote from Muhammad .... An hour of meditation is worth more than goods deeds done by men and spirits. Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity. 'Faith', to me, is persistence with a method in the belief that the outcome with be a revelation of an inner 'truth' of a deeper state of being, which may be given different names like heaven, paradise, nirvana, bliss, peace, satchitanada. The difficulty is that it cannot be presented as an objective fact. You have to demonstrate it to yourself by being the experimenter, the laboratory and the conclusion of the experiment. It is also difficult to communicate to others which is why the language of myth is used rather than logic.
Floo locuta est, causa finita est. ::)
Sweet Pea,What about an article on the musical tastes of an intelligent designer who is independent of the universe he has created?
I don't doubt that you're well-intentioned, but why is it worth reading as it just assumes "God" (and apparently a hating one at that) as its premise?
Would you read an article of the musical tastes of leprechauns? Why not?
At least she speaks in English!
What about an article on the musical tastes of an intelligent designer who is independent of the universe he has created?
ekimI'm not sure what you are asking. Aren't altered mental states the truth of that state? If you are aware that you are in a state of depression or a state of elation couldn't you declare that as a fact or as the truth of your mental state? The difficulty would be in expressing the validity of it to those who have never experienced the same.
This seems to me to be fine as a rationale for an altered mental state, but how would you know whether or not you’d actually identified a “fact or truth” rather than just, well, an altered mental state?
You’re playing here I think with the ambiguity in the terms “fact” and “truth”.
Hi Ekim,Yes, that's fair enough. I would add that many of the techniques are about either stilling the mind or consciously entering a still inner space. As soon as you 'seek to establish', or analyse, the inner stillness is lost and you are carried away on a train of thought.
It cannot be presented as an objective fact because it doesn't fall into that category. You are absolutely correct in that you can only demonstrate it to yourself, in which case it has to compete with every other 'truth' which can only be demonstrated to yourself, whether any two are contradictory or not. Because of this, anyone's 'inner truth' has equal validity. If we seek to establish any of these 'inner truths' as distinct from the inner workings of the mind, then we have to rely upon some method which can surmount this problem. So far, to my knowledge, none has been found.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Aren't altered mental states the truth of that state? If you are aware that you are in a state of depression or a state of elation couldn't you declare that as a fact or as the truth of your mental state? The difficulty would be in expressing the validity of it to those who have never experienced the same.
Vlad,
Do you have an argument for this designer of the universe that doesn't work equally well for leprechauns?
Gabriella,No idea what you are trying to say here about equivalence. My point was the Quran contains moral principles that are interpreted by people who also add a lot more detail based on what they think the purpose of the moral is and based on traditional stories as well as their own reasoning to create laws in some countries. In the absence of these interpreted and fleshed out laws being binding, people just use some of the moral principles they interpret from the Quran and Hadith as a guide for their morality and if they want more detailed information to make a moral decision they look for interpretations from scholars or other sources of interpretation or explanation in books or on-line or from speaking to people. So a lot of the time they accept that there may be differing opinions on the morality.
Spelling.
The difference is that the analogy fails, or at best isn’t relevant. You can’t just argue, “all documents are interpretation anyway” as if there’s equivalence in how they should be treated.
Have we? What status is there between “just guessing” and “reliable guide” that these people occupy?No idea what you are asking. Are you wanting to call the process of formulating personal morality "just guessing"? I think most religious people estimate levels of harm in society or in their family caused by certain actions and draw a moral line based on their personal tolerance of that risk of harm. FOr example, not drinking alcohol seems like a way of avoiding harm - is that what you are referring to as guessing?
But you do it seems think it’s a reliable guide to there being inerrant rules on which you will be judged, regardless of what they happen to be and how that judging would be done.I don't know what you mean by a reliable guide. I live my life on the basis of this belief because doing so gives me better outcomes than if I don't hold this belief. So it's a reliable guide to me getting generally positive outcomes in my daily life.
The gender analogy is hopeless by the way – it refers to a social construct (ie, gender) not to an objective fact (“God”, being judged etc).Actually it's a very useful analogy about individuals being responsible only for their own behaviour rather than the behaviour of other people who have constructed different interpretations of concepts such as masculinity or morality and whose personalities might compel them to behave in a way that adheres to their particular interpretation of those concepts.
Only when it’s used as a synonym for the continuum fallacy. It’s also though consequential logic when it’s an observable phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).Your use of it is a fallacy - given that religions are interpretations that are subject to variation, and also given that certainty is down to the individual personality regardless of whether they are religious or not, so religion can't be held responsible for an individual's propensity to certainty about their moral actions.
Without the brakes of reason, what else is there to stop people behaving according to their faith beliefs regardless of what they happen to be?No idea what your point is here. The evidence is that there are lots of religious people arriving at their particular interpretations of morality while also being law-abiding citizens. Presumably they have done so by applying the brakes of reason in order to arrive at their personal morality - so there isn't a problem. There is only a problem if their reasoning leads to their personal morality being at odds with the current morality enshrined in laws in their society.
Which actually is a logical fallacy – the tu quoque. How does that help you though?I'm just pointing out that the issue is the individual, not religion, for the reasons given above.
The same one you've been finding reasonable lately.
Ha ha ha
I'm afraid that and humbug Harrisism has rendered your aguements a busted flush
No idea what you are trying to say here about equivalence. My point was the Quran contains moral principles that are interpreted by people who also add a lot more detail based on what they think the purpose of the moral is and based on traditional stories as well as their own reasoning to create laws in some countries. In the absence of these interpreted and fleshed out laws being binding, people just use some of the moral principles they interpret from the Quran and Hadith as a guide for their morality and if they want more detailed information to make a moral decision they look for interpretations from scholars or other sources of interpretation or explanation in books or on-line or from speaking to people. So a lot of the time they accept that there may be differing opinions on the morality.
Some individuals are certain their personal morality is right and therefore justify breaking the law. Many other individuals are certain their personal morality is right but try to change the law through the acceptable processes of lobbying Parliament. Some / many people are not certain but stick with their morality until they buy into a something they think works better.
Statutes are also interpreted differently by different people - hence there are court cases and case law and a judge to decide which interpretation will prevail and the law is binding . So far so fine. Whatever problem you have with those statements will have to remain a mystery.
At least you seem to have finally understood that a person can believe in an inerrant god and also believe that words in religious texts are interpreted differently by different people.
No idea what you are asking.
Are you wanting to call the process of formulating personal morality "just guessing"?
I think most religious people estimate levels of harm in society or in their family caused by certain actions and draw a moral line based on their personal tolerance of that risk of harm. FOr example, not drinking alcohol seems like a way of avoiding harm - is that what you are referring to as guessing?
I don't know what you mean by a reliable guide.
I live my life on the basis of this belief because doing so gives me better outcomes than if I don't hold this belief. So it's a reliable guide to me getting generally positive outcomes in my daily life.
Actually it's a very useful analogy about individuals being responsible only for their own behaviour rather than the behaviour of other people who have constructed different interpretations of concepts such as masculinity or morality and whose personalities might compel them to behave in a way that adheres to their particular interpretation of those concepts.
Your use of it is a fallacy - given that religions are interpretations that are subject to variation, and also given that certainty is down to the individual personality regardless of whether they are religious or not, so religion can't be held responsible for an individual's propensity to certainty about their moral actions.
No idea what your point is here.
The evidence is that there are lots of religious people arriving at their particular interpretations of morality while also being law-abiding citizens. Presumably they have done so by applying the brakes of reason in order to arrive at their personal morality - so there isn't a problem. There is only a problem if their reasoning leads to their personal morality being at odds with the current morality enshrined in laws in their society.
I'm just pointing out that the issue is the individual, not religion, for the reasons given above.
The article, which I have read is complete garbage, it makes assertions about a god which probably doesn't exist, with no evidence to support them. Christianity is a RELIGION created by the unpleasant creep Paul, without his literary overproduction I suspect we would never have heard of the long dead Jesus.
Gabriella,The equivalence is that people act on their personal interpretation and was in response to you insisting that there must be some way to avoid interpretation when communicating with humans. There isn't. There wasn't any other point I was trying to make.
What I was saying was that pointing out that all texts require interpretation (albeit to varying degrees) doesn’t give you an equivalence in the way they’re treated and acted on.
Specifically, ether you think that these “moral principles” have been handed down by an omniscient god or you don’t. If you don’t, all you have is (early and relatively crude) moral philosophy and no appeal therefore to inerrancy. If you do though, then presumably you think too that somehow the basic sense of them will transcend any amount of interpretation that gives you “a lot more detail” on top, and so you’ll behave accordingly.I think moral principles are handed down by an inerrant god to be interpreted and adapted by fallible people to differing circumstances. How does the basic sense of "fight those who fight you and don't kill people unless there is just cause such as getting rid of violent oppression " or "stay away from alcohol unless there is a necessity" transcend any amount of interpretation? The words need interpretation.
If only I could say that you’d finally understood the significance of thinking there to be divine and therefore inerrant moral rules and a sure fire way to know what they are, even at just a “basic principle” level to use your phrase.I don't know of a sure fire way to know. I can certainly see the problem with people who are sure they know what is moral for everyone and want to find a way to force others to be subjected to their certainty.
Why not? It’s simple enough. You said, “As we already established faith can exist without people thinking their faith is a reliable guide.” I merely ask what you think this “faith” does if you don’t think it’s a reliable guide to what’s true.It gives you a sense of identity.
No, I’m asking you what “faith” has to do with that. I’ve formulated personal morality, but there’s no faith involved. What then do you think is missing from my morality that yours (or theists’ in general) has?If you don't feel there is anything missing from your morality, why would I have an opinion on it? I don't know you. I can only have an opinion on my morality or the morality of people with whom I interact, whose behaviour impacts on my life in some way. And I can only have an opinion on whether a god adds anything useful to their morality on a case by case basis. I've explained where I see a use for a god for me.
Which is fine, and no-one’s business but your own. You find utilitarian value in believing something to be true. This doesn’t though presumably entail you claiming that it is true because your faith tells you so, so the faith bit seems to be redundant here.Maybe. I'm not sure what you call believing in a god though if you don't call it faith. But you would be right in saying I continue to hold this belief because I find a way to make it work for me.
That’s missing it (yet) again. Where does “faith” fit into someone self-identifying his/her gender. On the other hand, if you said, “I don’t drink because that’s my faith” and someone else said, “I throw gay people off building because that’s my faith” you have very different outcomes but the same the same rationale for them. How then would you propose to argue to the other person that faith is a very bad reason for acting according to where it happens to lead?I think your analysis is simplistic. Short-hand reason for not drinking is "it's my faith" as that is an easy way of adhering to it as it gives you a sense of resolve to follow a personal standard. It's a bit like saying I will/ won't do something because I gave my word. But there are all kinds of other reasons to justify why drinking is a bad idea even though there are some benefits to alcohol - it's an assessment that the costs outweigh the benefits. It may be that some people who throw other people off buildings have come up with reasons why this is the best option for society, and it may be that some people do it because they are certain this is the morality their religion expects based on what they have learned from other people.
Are you being deliberately obtuse about this? I can see why you’d want to get faith as an epistemic method off the hook because it puts you in an uncomfortable place, but it doesn’t wash. As you’ve been unable to suggest a middle ground position (rightly as there isn’t one) either you think that faith itself is a rationale for identifying truths or it’s just guessing. And if you do think it’s the former, that’s not about “the individual’s propensity” at all – it’s about the rationale you share for finding truths.I've explained where I think faith fits into the equation and where reasoning and personality fits in.
Presumably they have. The problem though comes when those who haven’t applied those brakes share their rationale for not doing so with those who have the same rationale but have managed to compartmentalised it.No the problem is that there are individuals who haven't applied the brakes.
You’re not “pointing out”, you’re asserting – and wrongly so for the reasons I’ve explained. Individual morality etc is fine, but not when those individuals are convinced that their faith (or the faith of clerics they take seriously) takes them to unquestionable moral positions.Your assertions are wrong for the reasons I've explained.
ekim,As far as I can see it has nothing to do with beliefs in unicorns or anything else. Let's say it is a personal inner experience and let's call that experience 'bliss'. Yes, it is true for me and it is a fact that I am conscious of it's presence here and now. Let's say that what led to that experience was a series of practices. I might not be able to demonstrate the validity of that experience but I could pass on details of the practices which others might carry out in the hope of a similar inner experience. If successful then it becomes true for them even though they might call it paradise. Of course, if all they are concerned with is amassing second hand information rather than gaining first hand experience then scripture and Wikipedia is for them but it will not be their experiential truth.
No, what these things give you is “true for me only” beliefs. One man’s personal belief in unicorns is epistemically identical to another man’s personal belief in “God”. The problem comes when people overreach into calling the content of these beliefs "facts" because there’s no logical path from faith to objectivity.
Indeed.
Floo has spoken, the case is closed, sounds better in Latin though. More final.
Vlad,
Do you have an argument for this designer of the universe that doesn't work equally well for leprechauns?
..... and very often the second hand information is also mis-information or dis-information.
It's so very simple to come by, was never meant to be complicated, and that's where the saying, unless you become as a child, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven becomes meaningful.... a very young child is not programmed or adulterated by worldly things.
Just be still.... and you will find "the peace that passes all understanding".
Nobody could read Dawkins or Bluehillside and come to that conclusion. People with faith are according to these gentlemen sheep or fools.
Floo is atheist - theerfore she doesn't do the Christian "right for me MUST be right for everyone else".
Nobody could read Dawkins or Bluehillside and come to that conclusion. People with faith are according to these gentlemen sheep or fools.
Of course atheists believe we are ALL in a universe free from Gods.
While pagans believe New atheists are a pagans friend pagans will remain their "useful idiots".
I have seen on forums atheists encourage somebody of one faith tackle someone of another only to see the "victor" get savaged by their former atheist friends.
That is then more idiotic than anything previously taken for.
Yet again, no. What atheists actually believe is that there are no good reasons to think that there are gods. Whether there actually are or not is unknowable,
While pagans believe New atheists are a pagans friend pagans will remain their "useful idiots".
That is then more idiotic than anything previously taken for.
How do you know it's unknowable.
It seems that the purveyance of unknown unknowns is now once again at odds with itself.
So please take your misrepresentation of Pagans and shove as far as possible up where the sun don't shine.
You feather-headed idiot!Indeed - pagans are clearly closer to Christians on the atheist/theist spectrum than they are to atheists.
Pagans believe in deities, therefore they believe that atheists are as mistaken as theists who believe that there is only one God and he is a matter of FACT!
We believe that our deities are matters of FAITH - they have to be as there is absolutely no way to prove that they exists except as a matter of faith.
So please take your misrepresentation of Pagans and shove as far as possible up where the sun don't shine.
bluehillside....
Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....
God Hates Religion
This expose of religion is in no way designed or intended to impinge upon the reality of Christianity. Careful distinction between religion and Christianity must be made. As stated in the beginning of this article, Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior unto the glory of God. Religion is the man-made aberration that attempts to impose absolutism, authoritarianism and activism upon other men.
Indeed - pagans are clearly closer to Christians on the atheist/theist spectrum than they are to atheists.I haven't represented pagans as anything other than religious and not atheist.
I suspect Vlad is confusing real pagans who genuinely believe in pagan deities with a kind of new age-ish spiritualism (or even environmentalism) involving a critical belief in the importance of nature and the environment, but without a necessary belief in any god. Some of those people could be atheist, and indeed might even perceive themselves as being kind of pagan in a cultural sense, but if they don't actually believe in pagan deities then they aren't really pagan in the usually accepted sense.
I suspect Vlad is confusing real pagans who genuinely believe in pagan deities with a kind of new age-ish spiritualism (or even environmentalism) involving a critical belief in the importance of nature and the environment, but without a necessary belief in any god. Some of those people could be atheist, and indeed might even perceive themselves as being kind of pagan in a cultural sense, but if they don't actually believe in pagan deities then they aren't really pagan in the usually accepted sense.Isn't there a whiff of No True Scotsmanism about this? There are small but non-negligible numbers of non-realist Christians who don't believe in an objective God in some supernatural 'out there' sense. They regard themselves as Christians and I don't regard myself as the gatekeeper of what constitutes membership of the club or not.
I have seen on forums atheists encourage somebody of one faith tackle someone of another only to see the "victor" get savaged by their former atheist friends.
Quote from Sweet Pea:-
Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....
God Hates Religion
article followed
end quote
..................................................................................................
I totally agree that Christianity is not a religion. Many religions are formed out of Christian ideas, all man made.
I haven't represented pagans as anything other than religious and not atheist.
Indeed - pagans are clearly closer to Christians on the atheist/theist spectrum than they are to atheists.
I suspect Vlad is confusing real pagans who genuinely believe in pagan deities with a kind of new age-ish spiritualism (or even environmentalism) involving a critical belief in the importance of nature and the environment, but without a necessary belief in any god. Some of those people could be atheist, and indeed might even perceive themselves as being kind of pagan in a cultural sense, but if they don't actually believe in pagan deities then they aren't really pagan in the usually accepted sense.
I haven't represented pagans as anything other than religious and not atheist.
from: 'andles for forks on Today at 07:14:01
While pagans believe New atheists are a pagans friend pagans will remain their "useful idiots".
New atheists are a pagan's friendanymore than we believe that any Christian (including you especially) is a Pagan's friend.
Isn't there a whiff of No True Scotsmanism about this? There are small but non-negligible numbers of non-realist Christians who don't believe in an objective God in some supernatural 'out there' sense. They regard themselves as Christians and I don't regard myself as the gatekeeper of what constitutes membership of the club or not.Indeed - hence my caveat:
Indeed - hence my caveat:I think the concept of cultural Christianity is far looser - Dawkins has conceded that the label applies to him, and if interpreted with enough latitude it may well apply to anyone raised in a country where The Ten Commandments is on the telly at Easter rather than the Mahabharata and Songs of Praise every Sunday teatime. There's a cultural osmosis effect at work that nobody can miss out on even if they belong to another faith or none. That's how I've always understood the term at any rate - maybe it's just me.
'Some of those people could be atheist, and indeed might even perceive themselves as being kind of pagan in a cultural sense, but if they don't actually believe in pagan deities then they aren't really pagan in the usually accepted sense.'
Bit like the concept of the 'cultural Christian' - where their adherence is to do with tradition and heritage while they don't actually believe the key tenets of Christianity.
I think the concept of cultural Christianity is far looser - Dawkins has conceded that the label applies to him, and if interpreted with enough latitude it may well apply to anyone raised in a country where The Ten Commandments is on the telly at Easter rather than the Mahabharata and Songs of Praise every Sunday teatime. There's a cultural osmosis effect at work that nobody can miss out on even if they belong to another faith or none. That's how I've always understood the term at any rate - maybe it's just me.I suspect there are spectrums in all these areas.
That's entirely passive, though; non-realist Christians and atheist pagans however may well adhere to actual practice in a hands-on active sense - convening with others of like mind in certain places set aside for religious pursuits, praying etc.
The equivalence is that people act on their personal interpretation and was in response to you insisting that there must be some way to avoid interpretation when communicating with humans. There isn't. There wasn't any other point I was trying to make.
You might have been trying to make points about how they are treated differently - for example the one that is believed to be the word of God is recited in Arabic even when the person reciting it has no idea what it means and the book is treated with reverence rather than chucked on the floor and some people think their interpretation of it is the correct morality that everyone else should follow because some people want to believe they cannot be mistaken about knowing what God wants and as this is the only thing that gives them a sense of purpose and meaning in their life that over-rides any rules to the contrary.
Other religious people have a more balanced perspective about where God fits into their life and the morality they derive from religious sources. But you also get non-religious people who embark on moral crusades because they are certain their morality is right. So the outcome can be problematic if individuals are certain their morals are right and the general public disagrees - but of course certain moral crusades couched in religious terms that goes against the tide of public opinion can inspire people to act together in sufficient numbers to achieve a good outcome e.g. Wilberforce's campaign to make slavery illegal.
I think moral principles are handed down by an inerrant god to be interpreted and adapted by fallible people to differing circumstances. How does the basic sense of "fight those who fight you and don't kill people unless there is just cause such as getting rid of violent oppression " or "stay away from alcohol unless there is a necessity" transcend any amount of interpretation? The words need interpretation.
I don't know of a sure fire way to know. I can certainly see the problem with people who are sure they know what is moral for everyone and want to find a way to force others to be subjected to their certainty.
It gives you a sense of identity.
If you don't feel there is anything missing from your morality, why would I have an opinion on it? I don't know you. I can only have an opinion on my morality or the morality of people with whom I interact, whose behaviour impacts on my life in some way. And I can only have an opinion on whether a god adds anything useful to their morality on a case by case basis. I've explained where I see a use for a god for me.
Maybe. I'm not sure what you call believing in a god though if you don't call it faith. But you would be right in saying I continue to hold this belief because I find a way to make it work for me.
I think your analysis is simplistic. Short-hand reason for not drinking is "it's my faith" as that is an easy way of adhering to it as it gives you a sense of resolve to follow a personal standard. It's a bit like saying I will/ won't do something because I gave my word. But there are all kinds of other reasons to justify why drinking is a bad idea even though there are some benefits to alcohol - it's an assessment that the costs outweigh the benefits. It may be that some people who throw other people off buildings have come up with reasons why this is the best option for society, and it may be that some people do it because they are certain this is the morality their religion expects based on what they have learned from other people.
I've explained where I think faith fits into the equation and where reasoning and personality fits in.
No the problem is that there are individuals who haven't applied the brakes.
Your assertions are wrong for the reasons I've explained.
The evidence shows that those individuals come up with lots of reasons for their position. Bin Laden claimed he had a whole load of reasons to justify 9/11 - he didn't just say I'm doing this because it's my faith. He knew he would have to get Muslims all worked up about social and political injustices to try to convince them or to brainwash / groom them to support his cause.
Yet again, no. What atheists actually believe is that there are no good reasons to think that there are gods. Whether there actually are or not is unknowable, as it is for leprechauns.The bit in bold is a logical contradiction, so untrue.
As you're so utterly unreliable on everything else, are we expected to take your word for this?If your entire philosophy is as illustrated by the error highlighted, it's not surprising you cannot understand anything he says!
Vlad,You seem to like grasping on to things that are false. I wonder if you can see the error in the bit in bold (clue: It violates a property of truth)
Anything could be possible, gods and leprechauns included. So far though, no-one has managed to produce a cogent argument for either. Hence a-theism and a-leprechaunism respectively.
It's really not difficult to grasp. Really, it isn't.
You seem to like grasping on to things that are false. I wonder if you can see the error in the bit in bold (clue: It violates a property of truth)
You seem to like grasping on to things that are false. I wonder if you can see the error in the bit in bold (clue: It violates a property of truth)
So, about these 'properties' - when do we get told what they actually are?The Angel, Islington?
So, about these 'properties' - when do we get told what they actually are?
Gabriella,BHS
That’s not something I insisted at all. What I actually said is that:
- some ways of writing things down require less interpretation than others;
- if you think there are divinely revealed “basic principles” then the claim is self-negating unless they must necessarily be interpreted as the god intended them to be interpreted; and
- that interpretation is in any case irrelevant to the underlying problem of the epistemic status of faith claims of fact – ie, certain correctness rather than tentative recommendation.
Again though, ether you think that these “moral principles” have been handed down by an omniscient god or you don’t. If you do, you have two options:
1. To think that your faith is a guaranteed way to know what this god intended, and so to behave accordingly; or
2. To think there’s no way to know for sure what this god meant because all is interpretation, in which case you must ignore the divine inerrancy part and treat the text as you would any other early attempt at propositional moral philosophy.
Doesn’t work – see above. If you think even the plainest words depend for their meaning on our ability to interpret them, then the claim to “moral principles…handed down by an inerrant god” is negated: all you have is whatever your (or your preferred cleric's) interpretation tells you.
Then what’s the point of thinking them to be divinely authored when interpretation is all?
So does tap dancing. The difference though is that for the one of them the “faith” bit is freighted with all sorts of additional significance – like certain claims being necessarily true because that’s what faith tells the participants. Worse, our society that still privileges those who think that over, say, tap dancing clubs.
That’s disingenuous. You know what I was asking.
At heart what you’re doing here is conflating the two meanings of “faith” - on the one hand, a reasonable expectation of a practical effect based on experience and, on the other, a claim of an objective fact absent cogent logic or verifiable evidence.
An example of the first type might be, say, your faith that you car will start in the morning – it’s a good make, it’s well-maintained, it’s always started in the past etc. There’s no claim though to certainty – it might well not start tomorrow nonetheless. Your example of not drinking is of this type – you feel better for not doing it, so your “faith” that it’s a good idea is thereby vindicated.
The other type though is essentially the pixie dust you need to bridge the gap from thinking something is true (or wanting it to be true) to it being true with no connecting logic or evidence to support you. This is the “God is” type, and the mis-step goes:I've explained this before - repeating the same question over and over again is not going to get you a different answer. As I said before, if it affects other people in a potentially harmful way, I would need something more than faith. I would need to have some expectation of what the practical effect would be based on experience and make a decision about whether I thought the benefit outweighed the cost and as the level of potential harm rises, the more I would have to think before I make a decision to act. And I would expect to be judged on my decision. We went through all of this with the example of the inheritance rules. So if I was arguing with someone else, I would argue not to cause harm to others based on nothing more than interpretation and uncertainty.
1. I think God says don’t drink.
2. I don’t drink.
3. I feel better for not drinking.
4. Therefore god is correct.
5. Therefore god.
It doesn’t work though, for obvious reasons.
Having decided that there is a god and that he knows best because that’s your “faith” moreover, why then would someone not also follow the same reasoning to thinking he knows best about how to treat gay people too (according to some part of his “holy” text) and thus behave accordingly? After all, God got the alcohol thing correct right?
But not how, if you think all we have is the interpretation we bring to supposedly divine and inerrant principles, you could ever have the confidence to act on them given that the interpretation could change tomorrow, and nor how if you do have that confidence nonetheless you could deny the same confidence to those with the same rationale who thereby do terrible things.I don't need certainty or confidence to act. I have to make decisions all the time about how to act regardless of lack of certainty. It works for me and countless other Muslims. If it doesn't work for you, I'm afraid that is very much your problem to wrestle with. I can't tell you anything different to what I have been telling you. Up to you whether you want to accept it or not.
Yes I know he did, but at root still was religious faith – not least because the bombers wouldn’t need an escape if they thought death would bring them 72 virgins (who presumably have no choice in the matter) in paradise. It’s also the case that lots of people precisely do behave horribly because they think their faith mandates it. How, given that you too think that faith is a good way to identify truths, would you argue against them because you happen not to like where their faith leads them as much as where your faith leads you?It's not actually that hard dying for a principle you believe in regardless of virgins or not. So no - you haven't demonstrated that at the root still was religious faith. The religious beliefs might have been an added bonus but plenty of people decide to die for a bigger cause without needing faith in a religion. Suicide bombing was a popular tactic of the Tamil Tigers since 1980 and they used it to kill Rajiv Gandhi, former PM of India, in 1991, long before Bin Laden got a look in. His was just more spectacular - he said he got the idea from when Israel bombed the high rise towers in Lebanon in 1982, killing hundreds of civilians.
Do you not think that if you relegated faith to its proper place of just guessing you’d at least have some authority to make that argument?Ok feel free to call it guessing. I am guessing God and Islam and based on that guess I am a Muslim and I practise various rituals that are associated with my particular guess, which I pass onto my children, as it's a part of my identity, and they seem to like it too for now. A word has evolved in language for this type of a guess called "religion" and some people find this guess more special to them than other guesses because it gives them a certain perspective of their purpose in relation to the rest of the world, and their intellect and emotions like the idea of having a purpose, a plan, a structure and discipline in relation to these type of thoughts.
Actually it does work - inerrant god, fallible people interpreting rules based on reasoning and knowledge therefore no certainty, inerrant god judges fallible people on their interpretation. Hence the divine judging concept has been working for years.
I don't want a tap dancing identity, but I do want a Muslim identity.
Not being disingenuous, but it's fine if you want to think I am if that's your catchphrase for "I don't like your answer". I have no idea why you are asking me about your morality, I have no opinion on your morality as I can't decide for someone else what they are missing, I can only decide for myself what I am missing.
I've explained this before - repeating the same question over and over again is not going to get you a different answer. As I said before, if it affects other people in a potentially harmful way, I would need something more than faith. I would need to have some expectation of what the practical effect would be based on experience and make a decision about whether I thought the benefit outweighed the cost and as the level of potential harm rises, the more I would have to think before I make a decision to act. And I would expect to be judged on my decision. We went through all of this with the example of the inheritance rules. So if I was arguing with someone else, I would argue not to cause harm to others based on nothing more than interpretation and uncertainty.
And yes faith = pixie dust is fine with me. That's the whole point - there is no evidence or understanding of what god is - no beginning, no end, and nothing else like it isn't much of a definition, hence it is called a leap of faith. Or pixie dust if you prefer.
I don't need certainty or confidence to act. I have to make decisions all the time about how to act regardless of lack of certainty. It works for me and countless other Muslims. If it doesn't work for you, I'm afraid that is very much your problem to wrestle with. I can't tell you anything different to what I have been telling you. Up to you whether you want to accept it or not.
It's not actually that hard dying for a principle you believe in regardless of virgins or not.
So no - you haven't demonstrated that at the root still was religious faith. The religious beliefs might have been an added bonus but plenty of people decide to die for a bigger cause without needing faith in a religion. Suicide bombing was a popular tactic of the Tamil Tigers since 1980 and they used it to kill Rajiv Gandhi, former PM of India, in 1991, long before Bin Laden got a look in. His was just more spectacular - he said he got the idea from when Israel bombed the high rise towers in Lebanon in 1982, killing hundreds of civilians.
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were those of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we were tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
— Osama bin Laden, 2004
I've been caught up in a fight in Bulgaria and I was prepared to die rather than walk away. I thought better to die fighting rather than back down and religion did not even enter my head - it was just a fight with a bunch of thugs with coshes outside a money changing operation over someone getting ripped off. Some people just aren't afraid of dying in a fight.
Ok feel free to call it guessing.
I am guessing God and Islam and based on that guess I am a Muslim and I practise various rituals that are associated with my particular guess, which I pass onto my children, as it's a part of my identity, and they seem to like it too for now. A word has evolved in language for this type of a guess called "religion" and some people find this guess more special to them than other guesses because it gives them a certain perspective of their purpose in relation to the rest of the world, and their intellect and emotions like the idea of having a purpose, a plan, a structure and discipline in relation to these type of thoughts.
you are far too polite and therein may be a problem.
Yet again, no. What atheists actually believe is that there are no good reasons to think that there are gods. Whether there actually are or not is unknowable, as it is for leprechauns.
The bit in bold is a logical contradiction, so untrue.
As regards this to 'andles for forks
Quote
As you're so utterly unreliable on everything else, are we expected to take your word for this?
If your entire philosophy is as illustrated by the error highlighted, it's not surprising you cannot understand anything he says!
So this
We do not believe that anymore than we believe that any Christian (including you especially) is a Pagan's friend.
Gabriella,BHS,
First, I don’t know why you just ignored my correcting your misrepresentation of what I actually said? We seem to be in Vlad territory here – he too just makes up something I haven’t said but attributes it to me anyway, I correct him on it, he replies by talking about something else as if the misrepresentation hadn’t happened. Maybe it’s something religious people have in common?
Second, of course that doesn’t work – think about it: you just posited a god who judges people (post mortem apparently) according to whether or not their interpretive skills pre mortem were infallible. Does that seem like the behaviour of a just god to you, or of a tyrant?No, I posited a god who judges fallible people on their fallible interpretations and arrives at a just judgement, taking into account all the information, limitations, intentions, nature, nurture etc
No doubt, but the comparison was about the different ways society treats the two rather than about which you’d rather self-identify as belonging to.That's up to society. If enough people in society feel there is something more to religious identity than to certain other identities (such as a tap dancing identity), because religious identities have more meaning and weight to individuals and groups than other identities - then society will treat the two differently. Bit like ethnicity, nationality and gender identities being treated differently from a tap dancing identity.
First, you didn’t explain it at all; you just attempted an answer to a different question.I am not dancing between any meanings. I don't claim to know as a fact how god feels about moral decisions made by fallible people in any particular, individual, unique set of circumstances - let alone make claims of fact on the basis of what I have interpreted from holy texts.
Second, you’re using “faith” here only in the sense of “I have faith my car will start in the morning”. You do a sort of cost/benefit exercise (referred to in moral philosophy as “consequentialism”), and proceed accordingly. That though has nothing to do with faith in the religiously epistemic sense that concerns making claims of fact (“God”, “judgment”, what this god thinks about adultery, homosexuality etc) on the basis of supposedly revealed holy texts. You’re dancing between the meanings as if they're the same, but they’re not.
Third, the issue isn’t about “affecting other people in potentially harmful ways” at all. Rather it’s about privileging faith over guessing in the public square, and the damaging effect of legitimising it thereby for all concerned, faithful and faithless alike. Faith corrodes reason as rust corrodes metal – that not every metal thing is destroyed by it isn’t the point and moreover (to quote Neil Young) rust never sleeps.Maybe society has done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that currently the corrosion is a benefit to society - since society is made up of individuals it is up to individuals to decide that there is a problem that requires action to remedy it. The privilege that faith receives has changed over time so it will balance out at the level that the majority in society currently want it to be, based on their cost-benefit analysis.
Think about what you just did there. You reified the “god” bit and attached the unknowing to what this god is. “Faith” though is what gets you to “God” in the first place. What “He” is, thinks, wants etc are secondary matters for the same reason that whether leprechauns prefer Celtic folk or lounge jazz are secondary matters.No I didn't. What I did just there was explain the belief in God and agree with your pixie dust comment that I was responding to where you said "The other type though is essentially the pixie dust you need to bridge the gap from thinking something is true (or wanting it to be true) to it being true with no connecting logic or evidence to support you. This is the “God is” type".
And the larger point remains in any case – what then do people do with “faith” once they convince themselves that it’s more reliable than just guessing...about anything?Faith gives the people who hold it a particular sense of meaning related to their faith. Other than that there is no generalisation about what people do with faith. Some do law-abiding things and some don't. Some law-abiding actions are subsequently deemed by society to be wrong. Some non-law-abiding actions are deemed by society to have been a good thing on reflection, because they righted a wrong that society decided after the fact needed righting. Some non-law-abiding things continue to be condemned as wrong by society.
Do you not think you’d have to be pretty confident of you ground if, say, you wanted to use your faith belief to blow up a busload of schoolchildren in pursuit of your dream of a caliphate? (Just think of the rewards your cleric assured you you’d have in the afterlife for doing it too!) I do.I already commented on your erroneous, simplistic thinking. You have not demonstrated that some religious people commit terrorist actions solely based on rewards in the after-life or even demonstrated the amount of influence their faith has on their decision. I have provided ample evidence that there is usually a more complex moral reasoning related to geo-political events, which, by the way, is why some non-religious people kill innocent civilians for geo-political gains, and why the vast majority of religious people don't kill innocent civilians. If I was going to argue people out of killing other people, I would use "it's illegal" argument and "the end does not justify the means" argument, the "it's immoral" argument, the "you will be in a worse position and cause all kinds of potential problems for everyone" argument - pretty similar to the arguments against invading Iraq in 2003.
That you personally don’t use your conviction about the value of faith to kill innocents isn’t the point – it’s the fact that you and the bomber equally think the same rationale is valid for your different actions I question.You keep asserting this simplistic the same rationale argument without providing any evidence to support your argument, other than your own assumptions and guesses. See above. Oh and also read my response #790, which you evaded replying to, where I responded to this same point when you tried it before.
Do you seriously think it’s not a lot easier if you think that what comes next is paradise rather than oblivion?Last time I checked, your guesses followed by "seriously though" is not considered an argument worth engaging with.
Seriously though?
Establishing a Caliphate (or dying tying) seems fairly obviously to have religious faith at its root to me, and of course there are other, non-religious causes of violent and suicidal behaviour. A tu quoque (or maybe a "lui quoque"?) tells you nothing though about the rights and wrongs of the dogmatic use of faith in a religious context.I think we already agreed some time ago that dogmatism was a bad thing in any context.
What I call it is neither here nor there. Rather I argue that societies that don’t privilege it above guessing and treat its adherents instead as a private members’ club as we do the Flat Earth Society will be less problematic than those that do.Well, what can I say, our society seems to think it is beneficial to protect certain characteristics that go to someone's identity. But society has also given you a mechanism to argue your proposal and convince others to adopt it.
Which is no doubt all fine and dandy for you. You are though unhorsed if you want to argue against someone who treats his guessing similarly – practising rituals, handing it on to his children, framing his perspective of his purpose in relation to the rest of the world etc – and uses that rationale to blow up an aeroplane.No I'm not unhorsed because your assertion that it is the same rationale is nonsense. You claim that people use the same rationale to break the law and hurt people as they do to pass benign law-abiding traditions to their children, yet provide no evidence for your assertion. See #790 for my previous response on this.
That’s the problem. However benign and inoffensive the behaviours your faith leads you to, you exit the discussion when someone else uses the identical rationale of faith for horrific outcomes.
Isn't that the responsibility of those who employ them in the context of their worldview?
Who uses the term 'blind faith' about their own worldview?Like stupidity, it tends to be something that others see ;)
You seem to like grasping on to things that are false. I wonder if you can see the error in the bit in bold (clue: It violates a property of truth)If you want a sensible discussion, say plainly what you mean, instead of playing guessing-games.
Who uses the term 'blind faith' about their own worldview?...who are you?
Yet you would be the first to slam someone for blaming Islam for the terrorist actions and lumping them altogether.
Welcome back Owly - you OK?
Gabriella,Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?
Sorry it's taken a while - I just spotted your last reply. Rather than engage in ever-lengthening correspondence, can I just abbreviate my response please with a quote from Vlad's hero?
"The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.”
(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)
Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?
Gabriella,BHS
Sorry it's taken a while - I just spotted your last reply. Rather than engage in ever-lengthening correspondence, can I just abbreviate my response please with a quote from Vlad's hero?
"The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.”
(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)
Don't worry - your assertions about religion aren't particularly well-thought out or supported by evidence. I could have waited longer. Evasions noted.
Voltaire's and Russell's above assertions are meaningless noise in relation to our discussion about the majority of law-abiding religious people i.e the ones who don't commit atrocities and who have not been made to believe anything - whether it is beliefs about the identity they want to claim or moral, political or religious beliefs.
Also…
…you will find that many people think and then decide that dying for a purpose or cause is a rational decision.
Or it may just be that dying is preferable to living in numerous cases, since many people favour quality of life over just living.
Given that there are those with religious faith who aren't certain and are unwilling to murder, and those without religious faith who are certain and willing to murder, how can 'religious faith itself' be the problem?
You’ve missed it again. As RD notes, it’s not that extreme versions of religious faith are the problem but rather religious faith itself is the problem. Once you let down the drawbridge by privileging faith beliefs over guessing, how would you propose to police what comes over the moat?
Given that there are those with religious faith who aren't certain and are unwilling to murder, and those without religious faith who are certain and willing to murder, how can 'religious faith itself' be the problem?
NS,
Because religious faith deals in certainty. That some embrace that and some don’t is a secondary issue – there’s plenty there to provide a rationale for those who would murder in its name. By contrast, there’s nothing in the writings of, say, Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein that would do the same thing. Wy? Because, regardless of the arguments they make or the positions they advocate, none of them claim to be certain about it.
So you are going to deny the facts that there are people with religious faith who aren't certain and don't murder, and there are those without religious faith who are certain and do murder because those people who are certain in that case are just wrong and can be ignored?
Surely if the problem is religious faith itself you need to show that it is the cause, but the facts seem to show here that you aren't even just using post hoc, ergo proper hoc, just your assertions.
NS,
No, of course not. Why would I?
Both a cause and a method – if you don't need or even want an escape route (because 72 virgins await post mortem) how much easier it must be to blow up the 'plane.
What would you like me to do - list atrocities committed precisely because the perpetrators were certain that their religious faith mandated them? It's easy enough to do I'd have thought. Moreover, it's easy too to find apologists even now for those actions - the odious William Lane Craig for example telling us that tribal slaughter was fine for disobeying "God", and that that way the babies got to heaven even sooner than they otherwise would. What kind of absolute certainty must it take even to think that way?
NS,
No, of course not. Why would I?
Both a cause and a method – if you don't need or even want an escape route (because 72 virgins await post mortem) how much easier it must be to blow up the 'plane.
What would you like me to do - list atrocities committed precisely because the perpetrators were certain that their religious faith mandated them? It's easy enough to do I'd have thought. Moreover, it's easy too to find apologists even now for those actions - the odious William Lane Craig for example telling us that tribal slaughter was fine for disobeying "God", and that that way the babies got to heaven even sooner than they otherwise would. What kind of absolute certainty must it take even to think that way?
Why do you think that would work? You stated that it was religious faith that lead to certainty and this sort of action and yet there's me old sainted mother, still going, beating Brady and Manson, but never killed or conspired to kill anyone, and talking to me on Saturday about doubts So how is it that 'religious faith' leads to certainty and all that killing malarkey?
NS,
Again, it’s not that religious faith “leads to” certainty so much that it is certainty. Jesus we're told really wants you for a sunbeam. Voltaire again: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Once you buy into certainty underpinning those absurdities, what checks and balances do you have left not to follow wherever they lead? That your (no doubt entirely delightful) dear Mum hasn’t bought into it just means that, well, she hasn’t bought into it. Other people though do.
The bible itself talks about strong and weak faith and of faith as small as a mustard seed and people of little faith. Also mountain top experiences and arid periods.wax on, wax off
But surely that just says whenever you buy into certainty, you buy into certainty? Not that religion is certainty.
I mean, it's clear it isn't all certainty, see Manson. And it's clear that it has doubt for some, see me sainted mother. So in what sense is it 'certainty'?
NS,Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain despite me saying she isn't and you having never never met her. Seems odd. H
No, it says that religion - or more precisely, religious faith - is certainty because the assertion is the beginning and the end of it. There are few (or possibly no?) religions that say there may or may not be a god, or that if ever X could be demonstrated then its claim "God" would fall away. They're certain - really, really certain. And when there's no reasoning that got you into buying that certainty, how could there be reasoning that can get you out (look at AB on the other thread for fairly depressing evidence of that)?
The only issue then becomes how persuasive the clerics have been at selling the snake oil, which is why they focus so much on children
See above. It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter. The point rather is that, when someone who would blow up a school rationalises it with, "but that's my faith" how should someone who also thinks faith is a reliable guide to absolute truths (only different ones) argue against him?
You seem to think that a person who justifies this type of violence is going to be met with an OK.
See above. It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter. The point rather is that, when someone who would blow up a school rationalises it with, "but that's my faith" how should someone who also thinks faith is a reliable guide to absolute truths (only different ones) argue against him?
It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter.
Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain despite me saying she isn't and you having never never met her. Seems odd. H
And then there is you ignoring that this certainty isn't connected to religion as an absolute. All a bit Dunning Kruger assertion.
NS,
So I said:
To which you replied:
That’s a misrepresentation of Vladian proportions. How on earth do you get from, “that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or…” to, “Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain…”?
What do you think that I’m “ignoring” exactly? What does, “…isn’t connected to religion as an absolute” mean?
This looks close to another misrepresentation, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth so perhaps you could clarify.
Read your own post,...
....apparently you think my old daintrd motger might blow up a school if she was told to.
And in addition...
...you continue to ignore that non religious people happily kill out of certainty
So when are going to illustrate your clsim that it is 'religious belief itself' that leads to certainty?
Gabriella,BHS,
The irony of that will be lost on you,
but the basic principle is simple and sound enough I'd have thought – if you can be persuaded that nonsense is inerrantly true (indeed expected of you by a God who will reward you accordingly) then the brakes of ordinary decency will be removed in your pursuit of it. That’s not to say that there aren’t religious people who don’t reach accommodations with the more egregious parts of their faith beliefs, but it is to say that certainty and acting accordingly are inextricably bound up.You can't have an 'again', without a prior.
You’ve missed it again. As RD notes, it’s not that extreme versions of religious faith are the problem but rather religious faith itself is the problem. Once you let down the drawbridge by privileging faith beliefs over guessing, how would you propose to police what comes over the moat?
You can’t have an “also” without a prior.I was not referring to people who take only their own lives. That is your mis-interpretation of what I wrote. I was talking about people who are willing to die and kill for a principle or a way of life such as freedom or democracy or to not live under tyranny or oppression - the various revolutions, civil wars, freedom fighters over the years. We had Remembrance Sunday recently to remind ourselves of those who fight and kill and die in this country to try and preserve certain values and freedoms that they, and those whom they love and try to protect, hold dear. You don't need religious belief in order to feel this way about principles - it's a human trait that can be applied to anything - religion, politics, ethics.
Yes I do know that many people think that. The 9/11 bombers – pious men all – thought they were acting perfectly rationally.
How does that help you?
Yes it may be, but that’s only their life they’re taking and not the lives of others, and what’s that got to do with religious belief in any case?
Happy to engage with you by the way, but for practical purposes I’d appreciate it if we could stick to the points under discussion. Thanks.
NS,What does "religious faith deals in certainty" even mean? You are either being disingenuous or generalising. Some people can be certain but then your issue is with those people. As has been explained to you previously many times, other people believe that a God exists but don't do certainty, especially when it comes to deciding on a course of action. Deciding to carry out an action is not the same as believing in the existence of something - and you asserting over and over again that the former inevitably follows on from the latter isn't any more convincing now than it was in all your previous posts.
Because religious faith deals in certainty. That some embrace that and some don’t is a secondary issue – there’s plenty there to provide a rationale for those who would murder in its name. By contrast, there’s nothing in the writings of, say, Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein that would do the same thing. Wy? Because, regardless of the arguments they make or the positions they advocate, none of them claim to be certain about it.
NS,
I did. Why didn't you?
First, you're shifting ground. What you actually said was, "you think my mother is still certain despite me saying she isn't" despite my saying very specifically, "that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or...". Why don't we start with you withdrawing the accusation before we move to the next point?
Second, what I said was that if she had bought in to the absolute certainty line then presumably it was in a faith tradition that didn't tell her to blow up a school. Axiomatically, if she was completely certain then on what basis could she have said "no"?
You don't get an "in addition" - see above.
I'm not ignoring it at all - it's just not relevant here. You may as well ask why I argue that cholera is a bad thing when typhoid kills people too. I know it does, just as I know that other dogmatic beliefs have had (and still have) catastrophic effects. For the purpose of a discussion about religious faith though, so what? "OK it's bad, but so is something else" is a poor argument.
Any time you like - I can quote either its texts that say so, or the devastating actions of those who bought into its certainty and so committed them in its name. Which would you like?
What does "religious faith deals in certainty" even mean? You are either being disingenuous or generalising. Some people can be certain but then your issue is with those people. As has been explained to you previously many times, other people believe that a God exists but don't do certainty, especially when it comes to deciding on a course of action. Deciding to carry out an action is not the same as believing in the existence of something - and you asserting over and over again that the former inevitably follows on from the latter isn't any more convincing now than it was in all your previous posts.I've written a few paeans to doubt on here but I don't think that violence or atrocities are limited to those who are certain. Despite, to paraphrase Yeats, the worst being full of passionate intensity, I'm not convinced all who carry out such acts are certain but that sometimes they carry out such acts to mask their uncertainty. It's always seemed to me that people make their religion, as an atheist I can't see any other way of it happening.
Certainty is just one interpretation or model of a person's religious faith. There are others. So again you have not demonstrated that the problem is religious faith rather than the particular faith model of some religious people. And as I pointed out to you before, if the writings of Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein can be applied to geo-political conflicts about control of power and resources and protection of loved ones, which is usually what motivates people to kill or die for principles or values, then these writings will be used to justify violence. Unless you are a pacifist, I assume you are grateful that there are words in existence that can motivate people to be certain enough to kill and die to protect your freedom.
I've written a few paeans to doubt on here but I don't think that violence or atrocities are limited to those who are certain. Despite, to paraphrase Yeats, the worst being full of passionate intensity, I'm not convinced all who carry out such acts are certain but that sometimes they carry out such acts to mask their uncertainty. It's always seemed to me that people make their religion, as an atheist I can't see any other way of it happening.Especially if a religion commands 'Thou shalt not murder' and the followers carry out murder.
I've written a few paeans to doubt on here but I don't think that violence or atrocities are limited to those who are certain. Despite, to paraphrase Yeats, the worst being full of passionate intensity, I'm not convinced all who carry out such acts are certain but that sometimes they carry out such acts to mask their uncertainty. It's always seemed to me that people make their religion, as an atheist I can't see any other way of it happening.I would agree with that. I think people's motivations for violence are a complex interaction of impulses, emotions and reasoning, and religious interpretations are one out of many ways of manifesting this on-going interaction.
I would agree with that. I think people's motivations for violence are a complex interaction of impulses, emotions and reasoning, and religious interpretations are one out of many ways of manifesting this on-going interaction.Yes, it's undoubtedly true that religion and politics are what are the prime 'reasons' that people state that they act for since those deal with the big ticket 'ought' beliefs, but they are not the only things that motivate people, and if you have ever wandered into the depths of a Dr Who message board, the things that motivate thoughts of violence can be quite extraordinary. Religions as with any other set of beliefs seem to be able to be held in many different ways and intensities.
Any time you like - I can quote either its texts that say so, or the devastating actions of those who bought into its certainty and so committed them in its name. Which would you like?BHS
BHS
Both would be great. Quoting texts is pointless though unless you can demonstrate that every religious adherent who holds that text sacred commits atrocities once they have read the text. If on the other hand, there are religious adherents who hold the text sacred, who state that their interpretation of the text does not require them to blow up schools or fly planes into buildings and that the text is to be interpreted in context taking into account other parts of the text and other religious traditions, then your assertions remain simply 'true for you' beliefs.
I did ask you for evidence that atrocities were justified by someone simply saying "it's my faith" without the accompanying long litany of political or other grievances. So if you have evidence of that I think it would be worth examining.
Yes, it's undoubtedly true that religion and politics are what are the prime 'reasons' that people state that they act for since those deal with the big ticket 'ought' beliefs, but they are not the only things that motivate people, and if you have ever wandered into the depths of a Dr Who message board, the things that motivate thoughts of violence can be quite extraordinary. Religions as with any other set of beliefs seem to be able to be held in many different ways and intensities.True. I would say 'freedom' is a prime reason for violence. You get anti-colonialists like Frantz Fanon influencing many liberation movements to throw off colonial rule or neo-colonialist influence - Algerians, black South Africans, Palestinians, Tamil Tigers, the IRA. Fanon expressed the idea that "at the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force" and that people are not powerless to engineer change and do have the capacity to fight . Fanon also warned of the corrupt regimes that would follow independence in Africa and the Middle East and how corrupt regimes would be propped up by former colonial powers. Jean Paul Satre, who wrote a preface for one of Fanon's books on the role of violence in overthrowing oppressors, expressed the idea that "violence, like Achilles' lance, can heal the wounds that it has inflicted".
What about those theists who have killed people carrying out legal abortions, or tried to 'cure' gays in the name of their god?If you can give me a specific example by quoting or linking to a named individual's justification for their actions, I have something to respond to. I can't guess the motivation of nameless individuals. Especially as "In the name of their god" is a very vague assertion about their motivations.
If you can give me a specific example by quoting or linking to a named individual's justification for their actions, I have something to respond to. I can't guess the motivation of nameless individuals. Especially as "In the name of their god" is a very vague assertion about their motivations.And I would be interested what it is that makes their actions different from others who believe the same. Those who don't kill people carrying out abortions, or try to 'cure' gays. I'm struggling with the idea that it's only the extremes, and the extremes that are seen as bad, that are the outcome of this certainty that seems to be held by only some of those who follow religion.
The extreme good that someone might carry out in the name of religion is portrayed as just something that humans do without religion, but the evils are somehow to do with some added 'ingredient' from the outside of humanity. I've always found this approach from some atheists odd as it almost feels that they give religion a status of something external, like a sort of god.
I think that's basically Richard Dawkins' expressed view.Certainly it seems to be. It's also at the base of the idiotic Weinberg quote about needing religion to make good people do evil.
Certainly it seems to be. It's also at the base of the idiotic Weinberg quote about needing religion to make good people do evil.
I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours, ( using the word cuts, a little unfortunate also unintended).For me the spectre at the feast of Dawkins, Hillside and Weinberg is the Milgram experiment which actually specifically teaches that too much respect for scientists can be a dangerous thing too.
Regards ippy
For me the spectre at the feast of Dawkins, Hillside and Weinberg is the Milgram experiment which actually specifically teaches that too much respect for scientists can be a dangerous thing too.
So tell me Vlad, F G M isn't a religiously inspired act?We know that FGM is a feature of other particular cultures which are of a particular religious environment. Our own culture has made a stand on this.
If you feel you want to reply, try using some easily understood form of English, to be fair Vlad, I suppose English can be hard if it's not your first language.
Kind regards ippy
People can be led by all kinds of authority figures. Including priests, vicars, imams, preachers and popes.
The results of the Milgram experiment tend to lie buried and the results interpreted as a warning of how we can be led by authority. Recently researchers revisiting the Milgram experiment now see it as how we can be led by scientists and that revelation upsets many preconceptions in secular society.
I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours, ( using the word cuts, a little unfortunate also unintended).
Regards ippy
Not sure why you think it does. The post refers to two things, that some who argue religion causes bad actions seem to ignore any good actions people say they did because of religion - and I don't see where FGM deals with that.
The second is that Weinberg's quote that it takes religion to make good people commit evil is nonsense. And it is because people who appear good commit evil band cite reasons other than religion. Leaving aside the whole question pfwhether FGM has a cultural basis as well as a religious one, it wouldn't substantiate Weinberg's claim that it is religion which is capable of this as opposed to any overall belief in something such as cultural, political or tribal motivations.
Indeed as Vlad validly points out the Milgram experiment shows all you need is a lab coat and a clipboard. Though Vlad makes the same mistake as Weinberg in trying to tie the behaviour to something specific instead of noting that it appears to be a fairly generic trait.
Indeed if you look at the Stanford experiment or much of history, the idea that it takes much more than having authority for other wise 'good people' to act evilly seems a stretch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
I see where you're going with this post and I go along with you, but if you read the post you're responding to here again:
I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours,
I acknowledged that I hadn't been following this thread and I would have thought this would indicate that I could be missing some previously made point and I made it clear that my comment was specifically about that one particular post, just in case I my comment was misunderstood
I often assume that most intelligent people don't need to be lead by the hand and assume my, admittedly, shorthand but not that shorthand will be taken as I have stated, but then you'll always get the odd one that needs every tee crossed and i dotted before they will pretend to understand the meaning I'm trying to convey.
My working partner and I would have the occasional day where we didn't understand each other unless the English, our version, was exactly correct, that was fun I enjoyed that but sometimes that sort of thing can be needlessly tiresome.
Regards ippy
People can be led by all kinds of authority figures. Including priests, vicars, imams, preachers and popes.I am not disputing that but is that likely to be the case in a secular society?
Hmmmm....
I am not disputing that but is that likely to be the case in a secular society?I don't see why not.
I don't see why not.Of course leadership of secular society passed from scientists to antitheistic comedians and Merry Andrews such as Shappi Korsandi and Iain Lee. They must be hoping that the bush tucker trials will make them feel a little funny
Especially if one understands what secular actually means.
Oh, wait a minute, I see where you might be struggling! ::)
Of course leadership of secular society passed from scientists to antitheistic comedians and Merry Andrews such as Shappi Korsandi and Iain Lee. They must be hoping that the bush tucker trials will make them feel a little funnyI see somewhere else that you might be struggling. Maybe even more so.
So if I read this correctly you are saying that because you hadn't read the thread and what I had been saying, you know agree your point was invalid.
Thank you.Quote
Thank you, for making my previous post so clear to all, just in case of any misunderstanding I thought adding the content of my original post here as follows might help:
I see where you're going with this post and I go along with you, but if you read the post you're responding to here again:
I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours,
I acknowledged that I hadn't been following this thread and I would have thought this would indicate that I could be missing some previously made point and I made it clear that my comment was specifically about that one particular post, just in case I my comment was misunderstood
I often assume that most intelligent people don't need to be lead by the hand and assume my, admittedly, shorthand but not that shorthand will be taken as I have stated, but then you'll always get the odd one that needs every tee crossed and i dotted before they will pretend to understand the meaning I'm trying to convey.
My working partner and I would have the occasional day where we didn't understand each other unless the English, our version, was exactly correct, that was fun I enjoyed that but sometimes that sort of thing can be needlessly tiresome.
Kind regards ippy
I see somewhere else that you might be struggling. Maybe even more so.Ehh??????
Ehh??????Humour, FFS!